Here for those of you who want a 'civil' and 'rational debate' on gun control

reply to post by Bluesma

travel encompasses the common "method of the day" and that includes motorized vehicles.

forcing someone to use some other form of travel is 'restricting' their right to travel, get it ??

how does the 'power to harm others' figure into this conversation ?
are you supposing i couldn't propel an object while walking ?
or are you suggesting that a horse couldn't possibly get out of control and stampede a market or something ??

seriously ... you're really reaching with that angle.

who said anything about 'cops letting' anyone do anything ?
i mentioned something about them 'getting caught' or did you exclude that from comprehension on purpose ?

children don't have 'legal authority' to drive until they succumb to the illegal contract forced upon them by their state
however, the addition of a presumed legal requirement does not EVER remove/restrict their RIGHT to travel as necessary.

now, you are presuming that every child who has had this experience has been caught and that'd be a mistake.

point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.

no more than the AWB did for all the years it was in effect.
crime and gun crime specifically, increased
and that same crime has been on a steady decline ever since it naturally expired.

btw, without derailing this topic, do you know why the first 'driver license' was issued ??
it had NOTHING to do with ability or skill.
*** it was a 'legal permit' to (be noisy) disrupt the peace of the neighborhoods in which they transversed ... hence, the license was specific permission to 'break existing laws', get it ??

the whole license scheme is another topic addressed in many other threads.
licenses are permission to break laws ... always has been and should be remembered as such.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Do you apply the same thing to vehicles? Do you not want highschoolers to have Nissan 350Z's?

I don't care what high schoolers have, as long as it's legal to have on the road (another limit). I'd like to drive our Arctic Cat ATV everywhere, but it's illegal because it's dangerous. As long as the kids don't intrude on others' rights, I don't care. But I DO want certain limits on the liberty:
1. I them to have a license.
2. I want them to have taken some training and passed a basic test.
3. I want them to be 16 or older. I don't want 5-year-olds driving anything on the roads.
4. I want them to obey the laws of the road. (more limits)

There are limits.

It's illegal to deprive a person of life, their property, or freedom; No matter the tools used to do so.

When you get arrested, you're being deprived of your freedom. When a mother grounds her 15-year-old, she's depriving her of her freedom. I can't drive my ATV up to Albertsons. I'm being deprived of my freedom. I can give you a hundred examples of people legally being deprived of their freedom, for the betterment and safety of society.

I don't see people advocating that they give up their freedom of choice of the foods they eat since they're so fat.

The law actually does limit what we consume. Sometimes stupidly (IMO), but sometimes for the betterment of and safety of society.

Was it a violent felony?

Yes. He committed a violent felony (he killed his neighbor) and served his time. Now he's out, he hates you, he's been eyeing your daughter and he wants a tank. Are you going to advocate for him?

Just to get it out of the way, I know the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. I disagree with the use of the term and the category. But I do think there should be limits on which firearms and magazines the general public can legally own. I know there already are limits and I agree with them. But we can do better.

I have also said that an "assault weapons" ban is meaningless. It won't change anything, if it even passes, which I don't think it will. The Democrats are doing this to make their voter base feel safer and to maintain their support in order to take the house back in 2014. But I advocate for many of the reasonable limits being proposed.

And what mental illnesses are we going to base restrictions on? Depression is a mental illness.

I don't think the illness is as important as the state of mind or the stability of the patient. There are certain clues doctors are trained to look for. There must be a consensus for a patient's rights to be limited or revoked.

When you turn a right into a privilege though, that's when I have concerns.

NONE of our rights are without limits. If you don't act responsibly, the right (to vote, own a firearm, to move freely) can be revoked. Our society has proven that we are not responsible enough to exercise our second amendment rights responsibly. I hate blanket laws or restrictions, but in some cases, there is no viable option.

The law encroaches into our lives too much in some areas (personal) and not enough in others (societal), IMO. But we are millions of individuals and if we have laws that limit our rights so we can live in some kind of harmony and safety, someone is not going to be happy.

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93
point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.

And an "assault weapons" ban would not prevent people from exercising their natural right to own a firearm. Even if you have a driver's license, you can't legally drive a funny car on the roadways.

U.S citizens tend to be rational when weighing laws that benefit society at large. We all get that driving a funny car or farm equipment to do errands is not practical.

When weighing proposed gun laws with the fact that we now live under a fascist philosophy and un-constitutional reach into state sovereignty and individual privacy and rights I find it very rational and wise to protect our right to bear arms.

My favorite Jefferson quote:

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by Bluesma
I was just thinking- for those who feel firearms should be allowed any and all without controls,
How then do you feel about drivers licenses?
Do you feel that there shouldn't be any tests, or age requirements, or permits? That anyone should have the right to drive whenever they want to?

You have to have a permit to purchase a firearm. I do think you need to know about gun safety and have some training at the least. But there are age limits to certain types of weapons, but I feel that most parents are responsible enough to be around their child while they are using the weapon.

It should be a case by case basis. Those who abuse their rights should be punished appropriately and proportionately. But you don't punish and limit everyone because of one person.

And there are places where the use of funny cars are appropriate, just as there are places that are appropriate to have a gun. But where you take a vehicle is limited because of the function of the vehicle, the places where 'you can't take a gun' is to 'protect the people'. Protecting the people should be left to the people. You can't enforce these kinds of things.

Originally posted by Honor93
the part you are missing is "travel" is a right and no law that infringes that right is lawful.

You have a right under UN law to travel within and throughout borders of states and countries. This does not guarantee any rights to motor vehicles. There is no right that I know of in the United States that provides a right to motor vehicles either.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't care what high schoolers have, as long as it's legal to have on the road (another limit). I'd like to drive our Arctic Cat ATV everywhere, but it's illegal because it's dangerous. As long as the kids don't intrude on others' rights, I don't care. But I DO want certain limits on the liberty:
1. I them to have a license.
2. I want them to have taken some training and passed a basic test.
3. I want them to be 16 or older. I don't want 5-year-olds driving anything on the roads.
4. I want them to obey the laws of the road. (more limits)
There are limits.

I believe the reason you cannot drive your Arctic Cat ATV anywhere is because it is not capable of the same speed as other vehicles. Tractors are allowed on the roads however. They're even used to cut back the weeds and trees near roads.

1)You have to have a permit to purchase a weapon
2)I also want this and feel it should be required for purchasing or owning a firearm.
3)In most states you must be 21 to own a handgun. However, you can own a rifle or shotgun at any age it seems. You can own BB guns as well. But you must be 18 to purchase these things.
4)I also want them to obey the laws. It's not safe to fire warning shots according to the law in most states. It's illegal to murder people. You shouldn't shoot at people unless you mean to harm (in the name of defense of course, I don't condone murder). It's against the law to use a firearm in the commission of a crime (robbery, assault, etc) or to deprive someone of their rights or property.

When you get arrested, you're being deprived of your freedom. When a mother grounds her 15-year-old, she's depriving her of her freedom. I can't drive my ATV up to Albertsons. I'm being deprived of my freedom. I can give you a hundred examples of people legally being deprived of their freedom, for the betterment and safety of society.

The difference between you or me and a mother (unless you are one of course) or a police officer is that they have authority. One is given authority through the power of law, and the other is authority through being a mentor/parent. That's order. But when you drive an ATV on the road, it can be legal if it meets the standards of the Motor Department of your state and the Federal Law. But it's not ideal to drive it on the road.

"For the betterment and safety of society."

So it's cool if certain cultures in our society advocate stealing, shooting, womanizing?

I guess that's perfectly cool, even though that doesn't better our society in any way.

The law actually does limit what we consume. Sometimes stupidly (IMO), but sometimes for the betterment of and safety of society.

YOU DON'T MAKE IT ILLEGAL. You don't make laws on this. It's up to the people to sort those things out.

You keep saying 'for the betterment and safety of the society.' You want to make it illegal to learn life lessons and make the government our babysitter and nanny us to death.

This kind of stance sees people as irresponsible as a whole. Give us more credit than this.

Continued in my next post.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yes. He committed a violent felony (he killed his neighbor) and served his time. Now he's out, he hates you, he's been eyeing your daughter and he wants a tank. Are you going to advocate for him?

Just to get it out of the way, I know the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. I disagree with the use of the term and the category. But I do think there should be limits on which firearms and magazines the general public can legally own. I know there already are limits and I agree with them. But we can do better. I have also said that an "assault weapons" ban is meaningless. It won't change anything, if it even passes, which I don't think it will. The Democrats are doing this to make their voter base feel safer and to maintain their support in order to take the house back in 2014. But I advocate for many of the reasonable limits being proposed.

Yes, I will advocate for his right to own a tank. If he has the money to own one, sure, go ahead. The point in sending someone to jail shouldn't just be for punishment. The reason they went to jail in the first place needs to be taken into consideration. Were they just at a bad place in their life? Are they truly a violent person?
We should try to help these people instead of just saying "oh, they broke the rules. Go to the corner."
That doesn't solve anything. Especially when the culture in prison is just to help each other learn new ways to do things illegally instead of trying to better each other.

I don't care what he's done, he still has a right to own property.

And why do you believe there should be a limit on magazines and types of weapons you can own?
Look at this picture and tell me if that still makes sense,



So this is reasonable?
That doesn't make much sense to me...

NONE of our rights are without limits. If you don't act responsibly, the right (to vote, own a firearm, to move freely) can be revoked. Our society has proven that we are not responsible enough to exercise our second amendment rights responsibly. I hate blanket laws or restrictions, but in some cases, there is no viable option. The law encroaches into our lives too much in some areas (personal) and not enough in others (societal), IMO. But we are millions of individuals and if we have laws that limit our rights so we can live in some kind of harmony and safety, someone is not going to be happy.

It's true they are not without limits, but you're not looking at limiting it the correct way.

You're advocating: You can eat ho-ho's, but not ding-dongs, you don't need/have to have/(insert reason here) those.

Without looking at even what they're using either of them for, which isn't your or the government's concern in the first place.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE. There is no such right in existence. You have a right to move freely.
Either way, when someone has proven THEY are not responsible, then you punish THEM.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE IN CONTROLLING THE SOCIETY. NONE. EVER.

You say that you don't like blanket laws, but then advocate them!?
STAND FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS. DO NOT COMPROMISE IN THIS WAY. This is the reason we are where we are now. There is respect for others. There is no moral compass to guide people anymore.

Apply this 'We're not responsible enough' to vehicles.



ARE YOU GOING TO BLAME ALCOHOL OR PEOPLE!?

If you blame alcohol, then alcohol gets people drunk instead of people choosing to get drunk.
If you blame people, then punish those responsible! Not people who have nothing to do with it!

The laws that limit our rights...THOSE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall not be infringed.

Does the government need to limit Free Speech? Look at the things people say to each other!
They're rude. Horrible. They obviously aren't responsible enough to hold their tongue.
Let's limit what words they can use, because some words...they're too rude.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
We should try to help these people instead of just saying "oh, they broke the rules. Go to the corner."

Oh, I agree! My point is that there are laws and Supreme Court findings that limit our rights.

Look at this picture and tell me if that still makes sense

Why do I support limiting LCMs? Mass shootings. LCMs are designed to kill more people more quickly. The picture is silly. If they are going to limit the size of magazines, they have to pick a number.

Instead of silly and inaccurate pictures, how about we use actual data, instead, for this rational discussion?

2009 Murder Statistics

TYPE OF WEAPON OR CAUSE OF DEATH
Total firearms. . . . . . . . . . . .9,203
Handguns. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,503
Rifles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .352
Shotguns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .424
Other not specified or
type unknown. . . . . . . . . . .. .96
Firearms, type not stated. . . .1,828
Knives or cutting
instruments. . . . . . . . . . . .1,836
Blunt objects *1. . . . . . . . . . . .623
Personal weapons *2. . . . . . . .815
Poison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Explosives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Narcotics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Drowning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Strangulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Asphyxiation. . . . . . . . . . . . .84
All other 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .905
*1 Refers to club, hammer, etc.
*2 Hands, fists, feet, pushed, etc.

Format edited to show only 2009 numbers.

You're advocating: You can eat ho-ho's, but not ding-dongs, you don't need/have to have/(insert reason here) those.

Ho-Hos and Ding Dongs are the same thing. (Keep in mind I do not support an "assault weapons" ban. I support reasonable legislation that will actually make it more difficult for dangerous people to get guns.)

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE.

Yes, I do.
1. The ninth amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's implicit in the Constitution.
3. The 26th Amendment talks about the right to vote.

Regarding the third silly picture, it's AGAINST THE LAW to drink and drive. I blame the person, not the alcohol or the car. But I do not advocate letting just anyone drink or own and drive a car.

Does the government need to limit Free Speech?

Yes. If a person speaking freely causes danger or harm to others, it is limited.

1.1 Incitement
1.2 False statements of fact
1.3 Obscenity
1.4 Child pornography
1.5 Fighting words and offensive speech
1.6 Threats
1.7 Speech owned by others
1.8 Commercial speech

Free Speech Exceptions

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH

ARE YOU GOING TO BLAME ALCOHOL OR PEOPLE!?

If you blame alcohol, then alcohol gets people drunk instead of people choosing to get drunk.
If you blame people, then punish those responsible! Not people who have nothing to do with it!

There are laws limiting people's rights to drive while intoxicated. That's a form of control. And the analogous argument to limited gun control is less control over what drivers feel they want to put in their body before they get in a car.

I used to live in the country and it would have been a great help to me if drink driving was legal. But I can see why it's not.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ManFromEurope

 

I will tell you...European Cops could use a few Guns. Riots in Europe always get out of hand and such riots are few and far between in the states because our Cops would never allow it.

Split Infinity

All European police carry firearms. The UK is the only exception.

We had some pretty nuts riots last year but nobody got shot. Unlike the LA riots of 1992 for example where around 40 people were killed in shootings.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Then use twinkies and ho hos, ding dongs and ho hos taste different to me.

The point is, it's not about the items themselves, but the use.
It would be saying that the twinkies make you fat, but ho hos don't.

And that would include any item, gun, vehicles, food.
The USE is what matters, not the item.

And who's going to decide who dangerous people are?
Your doctor? Who now must in accordance with the law, report to the government that you have a firearm in the house?

Yes, I do. 1. The ninth amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's implicit in the Constitution. 3. The 26th Amendment talks about the right to vote.

The Right To Vote The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to. Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.

Source

Yes. If a person speaking freely causes danger or harm to others, it is limited. 1.1 Incitement 1.2 False statements of fact 1.3 Obscenity 1.4 Child pornography 1.5 Fighting words and offensive speech 1.6 Threats 1.7 Speech owned by others 1.8 Commercial speech Free Speech Exceptions

These are not limiting what words you can use, but how you use your words.

Which we already have those in place,

Regarding the third silly picture, it's AGAINST THE LAW to drink and drive. I blame the person, not the alcohol or the car. But I do not advocate letting just anyone drink or own and drive a car.

I already said in my other post it's illegal to kill people or use your weapon in an illegal way.
And we have some laws that prevent people from owning weapons.

But owning a firearm or car is a right. Using them is the part where you and I disagree.

You can own a car, even if you aren't legally licensed.
There's no law against that.
It's how people use these things that is limited, not who or how you can buy them.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Alright, so let's have at it shall we?

First off, I'd like to say I live in America and I have no problem with people having firearms.

The military and police carry firearms all the time and we trust them do we not? The people in the military and police are just like you and me. Some are flawed. Most trustworthy.

Why then would you not want your average citizen to not be armed to protect themselves, or execute their right to own a firearm for whatever reason?

And no, I don't agree that limitations are needed, whether they are reasonable or not.
The Second Amendment has many functions, the most important of which would be to take the country back, or to defend the country and constitution from foreign powers.
Part of the freedom we enjoy is the freedom of choice. And the Constitution wasn't built on 'wants' and 'needs', it was built on choice and freedom. The freedom to choose for yourself what is adequate for your situation is important, no matter the topic, and the right to own what you want is what is at stake if you disagree.

By dictating what 'guns' someone can own, you give the government the power to dictate anything else you can and cannot own. Which, it already has done so.

edit on 29-1-2013 by Xen0m0rpH because: Punctuation, grammar, etc corrections

Totally agree. Whatever weapons are allowed by our police, we should also be allowed to own. This just seems to me to be common sense.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH

ARE YOU GOING TO BLAME ALCOHOL OR PEOPLE!?

If you blame alcohol, then alcohol gets people drunk instead of people choosing to get drunk.
If you blame people, then punish those responsible! Not people who have nothing to do with it!

There are laws limiting people's rights to drive while intoxicated. That's a form of control. And the analogous argument to limited gun control is less control over what drivers feel they want to put in their body before they get in a car.

I used to live in the country and it would have been a great help to me if drink driving was legal. But I can see why it's not.

The analogous argument is the vehicle is a tool.
It's use is regulated.
The right to own one, or what type, is not.

If you are intoxicated, it is not legal to drive.
Therefore, if you're not in the right state of mind, you cannot use a tool.
But you still have the right to own/purchase the tool.

Originally posted by Witness2008
U.S citizens tend to be rational when weighing laws that benefit society at large. We all get that driving a funny car or farm equipment to do errands is not practical.

When weighing proposed gun laws with the fact that we now live under a fascist philosophy and un-constitutional reach into state sovereignty and individual privacy and rights I find it very rational and wise to protect our right to bear arms.

My favorite Jefferson quote:

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

edit on 30-1-2013 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2013 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)

Another bogus Jefferson quote :-

www.guncite.com...

If people had confidence that their argument was right why did some make stuff up to support it ?

reply to post by Alfie1


That's the same question you should be asking our federal government or your government.

Quotes aside, which annoys me too, because it just gives off bad impression. It's really not a matter of utility or safety, those are red herrings that shouldn't be entertained. The 2nd has not been amended or stricken and it is quite clear. This is a simple matter of law. The second doesn't give us the right to bear arms, it limits the power of the federal gov to legislate against. If a state wants to put restrictions, so be it, and there are a few that share the anti-freedom crowd's views (ILL, NY, DC). People are free to move to any part of the country that falls in line with their beliefs and fears. Or, congress can convene to amend the constitution.

I read this a while back.

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

www.redstate.com...

I would like to expand on my above post. The letter by a major Caudill was a reasoned statement on the issue of gun control.

So much of the discussion has been shifted on hunting and how politicians have stated over and over again how people could still hunt.

It's not about hunting, in my humble opinion.

With guns, government listens to the people.

Without guns, the government orders the people.

But I don't want EVERY weapon to be available to EVERY person. I think there's a middle ground. There are reasonable limits on all of our rights and I support them in our complex society.

i would agree with this partially. there IS a middle ground, but limitations on small arms shouldn't be pushed on law abiding citizens. this debate is over small arms, not tanks and jets, and no one is arguing that citizens should have access to active military vehicles.

So, you're OK with your felon neighbor who hates you owning an XM8 tank and an arsenal of fully-automatic weapons?

felons aren't allowed to own guns already (no proposed law would change that), and tanks don't fall under the second amendment.

If we were going to "take the country back" don't you think we would have done it by now? I mean, do you think WE run the country (as it was meant to be)? If "we, the people" aren't running this country, then why haven't we "taken it back"? Think about the practicality instead of the romanticism of your statement.

the truth is that most americans are not aware of how much wrong the government is doing. practically no one has any idea what the "patriot act" is about, or that paying with cash, keeping a week's worth of food in your house, and disagreeing with government policy is enough to put you on a terrorist watchlist.

the goal, without any quixotic notions, is to keep americans armed long enough for something to happen that opens their eyes to how corrupt the government has become.

Consider that the state of maximum individual freedom (without limits) is known as anarchy and the fact is that humans aren't evolved enough to operate in a complex social environment under the structure of anarchy. (I actually support the idea of anarchy, but KNOW that our society cannot be trusted to function under it.)

i agree that humans aren't trustworthy enough to operate under their own personal morals, which is why our society operates on the "social contract" theory. if you violate the rights of others, your rights can be violated in the form of a punishment; whether that be something as mundane as forced labor (community service) or as restricting as a prison sentence. if our society is built on this theory, why then are we passing laws that restrict the rights of those who have not violated the rights of others?

one topic that you didn't address is mental health. this is, in my opinion, the most difficult problem that needs the utmost care when considering laws that restrict gun ownership to "mentally unstable" individuals. i would be interested in hearing your take on this. i think restrictions should only be placed on people with serious issues. for instance, i wouldn't restrict someone who has had depression from owning a gun, or OCD, or the majority of psychological issues. i would only include those with things like paranoid schizophrenia, or people with bipolar disorder who enter into uncontrollable manic states (only those who would actually pose a threat, instead of a blanket ban).

reply to post by Alfie1

If people had confidence that their argument was right why did some make stuff up to support it ?

would you also apply that reasoning to the bill of rights?

your statement about what jefferson said leads me to believe that you don't fully understand the intention behind the second amendment.

i believe you are overlooking the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. jefferson meant that people wouldn't have to exercise their right to bear arms (read "overthrow a corrupt government") until the government attempted to take their guns away.

the second amendment is intended to give americans the means to overthrow the government, should it become corrupt. the first thing a corrupt government attempts to do when trying for a complete takeover is "restrict" (read "ban") guns. therefore, an attempt to take guns away (violate the second amendment) is when the second amendment will be used.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Why do I support limiting LCMs? Mass shootings. LCMs are designed to kill more people more quickly. The picture is silly. If they are going to limit the size of magazines, they have to pick a number. Instead of silly and inaccurate pictures, how about we use actual data, instead, for this rational discussion?

34 people were killed in 2009 in mass shootings (there were only 3), one of which was the fort hood shooting. i mention it specifically because there were several bad calls, if not complete regulation failures, that ended up allowing him to kill so many.

34 deaths is no reason to ban "large capacity mags". most gun violence in america (upwards of 60%) occurs in major cities, which typically have the strictest gun control measures.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma

 

how does the 'power to harm others' figure into this conversation ?
are you supposing i couldn't propel an object while walking ?
or are you suggesting that a horse couldn't possibly get out of control and stampede a market or something ??

seriously ... you're really reaching with that angle.

I'm reaching?? So.. why do we have a permit for driving a car, and not a bicycle?
For piloting a plane, but not for riding a horse?
Because there is much higher chance of killing someone when you run into them with a car, than on a bike.
Because crashing a plane into a house will do more damage than a horse going bronc on it.
Your chances of injuring or killing yourself are higher than of killing or harming another, with the bicycle or the horse.
Many societies (including ours) give you more freedom to harm yourself than others.

who said anything about 'cops letting' anyone do anything ?
i mentioned something about them 'getting caught' or did you exclude that from comprehension on purpose ?

Uh.. by whom or what do they get "caught" ?? I admit I assumed that the authorities catching them and not prosecuting would be police... who then? If I am not getting what you meant, I am certainly not doing it on purpose. I was also very respectful to you, is this rude snarkiness an accident on your part, or are you doing it on purpose?? This thread was supposed to be the civil one- did you post in the wrong thread?

children don't have 'legal authority' to drive until they succumb to the illegal contract forced upon them by their state

however, the addition of a presumed legal requirement does not EVER remove/restrict their RIGHT to travel as necessary.

You are calling a law, illegal...how does that work? (please save your nasty insults and just explain what you mean, I will admit to being ignorant on some subjects and listen when people explain)
Either something is illegal to do, and you do not have the right to do it,
or it is legal and you have the right to do it....your statements seem paradoxal to me.

]now, you are presuming that every child who has had this experience has been caught and that'd be a mistake.

I did no such thing. You clamed that children get caught doing this all the time and I simply followed along that, saying that in those cases you refer to...

point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.

What is a "natural right"?? I have never heard of such a thing, never heard that term ! Are you talking from a religious point of view or something??

btw, without derailing this topic, do you know why the first 'driver license' was issued ??
it had NOTHING to do with ability or skill.
*** it was a 'legal permit' to (be noisy) disrupt the peace of the neighborhoods in which they transversed ... hence, the license was specific permission to 'break existing laws', get it ??

The noise would spook the horses, causing people on them or in the vehicles pulled by them to get hurt or killed... the car noise was very dangerous to other people! You had to learn the laws, like you had to have some walk ahead on foot to intersections to hold up a flag and warn others you were coming. Because you were a danger to others... Get it???