# 1st vs. 2nd amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2002, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690 "2002-10-17T16:48:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/41 "2002-10-18T19:25:11Z")
Thanks Uncle! ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/42 "2002-10-18T19:29:00Z")
And my mistake about disassembling firearms for transportation in Indiana. The must only be “securely wrapped.” Perhaps I was thinking of Illinois where firearms may either be "broken down in a non-functioning state or not immediately accessible (e.g., in the trunk of a car). Rhode Island’s transportation laws are similar to Illinois. In fact, although I would have sworn it to be the case, I can find no state that requires a firearm to be broken down for transport - locked away, _or_ broken down appears to be not uncommon. I apologize for the misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/43 "2002-10-18T19:49:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Why not, UncleBeer? How is a loaded gun in my glovebox more dangerous than one in my nightstand? Coupla reasons: First, no, I don’t believe it’s more dangerous because it’s in your car, or at least I don’t believe **you** are more dangerous. A gun in the glovebox **is** more accessible to thieves. Breaking into the passenger compartment of a car is a whole lot easier and faster than breaking into your home. This is what I fear, making guns more accessible to criminals. That’s what makes the gun, and especially a loaded gun, in your glove box more dangerous. (And I hate even using that word “dangerous” when speaking of guns; they’re inanimate after all, it is the users and misusers of guns are what is dangerous.) Also, transportation is, in my opinion, more inextricably entwined with concealed carry; not so with keeping one in your nightstand. The mobility is my concern. If concealed carry is prohibited in your state (and I’ll note here that I support concealed carry laws, including, or perhaps, especially, those of the “shall-issue” variety), I think a reasonable adjunct is a prohibition to transporting loaded weapons in your car. Your car is the usual transition point between home and wherever your’re going. If you can’t legally carry a loaded weapon where you’re going then I see little need to be armed en route. I’m certainly willing to be convinced otherwise, though. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/44 "2002-10-18T20:04:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > BTW, **Riboflavin** , I didn’t ask about freedom of association, which is, after all, not in the text of the First Amendment. Did you read that part of it about peaceable assembly? Even the most twisted interpretations of the first that I’ve seen don’t deny that the right of the people to peacably assemble means that you can peacably assemble with whoever you want to, hence free association. As I’ve come to expect from you in these debates, you picked one line in my post to play around with and neglected to address the detailed response to your original question. I rather clearly pointed out the due process of law involved in stripping felons and the severely insane of parts of their rights. You keep ignoring all of the other constitutional rights which are stripped from felons (vote, peaceable assembly, etc.) or the severely insanse to say ‘but look! they don’t lose these particular selected fragments of the first amendment but they do lose the second! I win!’. You also seem to be completely glossing over the fact that the gun control proposals you like so much consitute prior restraint, not restrictions imposed after someone has been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally incompetent. And the ‘expedience’ bit is just silly on your part. What people have said is that even if they don’t agree with the current laws about felons and guns (for example, I know a lot of people who don’t see the point in barring violent felons from possessing firearms), it’s simply not worth the bad press that would accrue from fighting that law. After all, you still didn’t answer my question about why the GC crowd has not spent a bit of effort on closing the “anti-trust loophole”, which allows convicted felons to purchase firearms completely legally. Does the GC crowd think that any felons should be allowed to own firearms, or do they just not consider it worthwile to try to close that loophole? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/45 "2002-10-18T20:18:23Z")
> [@](#): > > You also seem to be completely glossing over the fact that the gun control proposals you like so much consitute prior restraint, not restrictions imposed after someone has been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally incompetent. Good distinction, Riboflavin. The rest of us missed that rather obvious flaw in Minty’s argument. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/46 "2002-10-18T20:30:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > \*\*Well, Enter24 is one of the more creative ways I’ve heard it spelled. **Riboflavin** , the 2nd amendment merely gives you the right to bear arms it does not absolve you of any responsibility concerning said arms. The whole point of my list of ‘given ups’ is that what I listed are close matches to what you called 1st amendment rights given up, and that pretending that 2nd amendment supporters want to be able to fire a gun right by your ear is as silly as asserting that 1st amendment supporters want to be able to yell through a bullhorn right by your ear. You’ve been trying to say ‘look, I accept these limits on things protected by the 1st amendment, why can’t you accept limits on things protected by the 2nd amendment’, but the sort of things you list as exceptions to the 1st are already and have long been accepted as limits on keeping and bearing arms. > [@](#): > > Finally, I’ll ignore your comments on Islam lest the temperature of this room rise above its placid 98.6 degrees. You shouldn’t (and ‘comment’ would be more accurate). It’s exactly the same sort of rhetoric that goes around when new gun laws are proposed, and the characterization ‘practicing Islam is bad’ is just as inaccurate as the characterisation ‘owning handguns is bad’. Are you suprised that PG people fight against proposals supported with that kind of language? Would you object to any of my proposed restrictions on the first amendment?You dismissed the second list out of hand apparently, but those are example restrictions on speech/press/religion/assembly analagous to the ones people propose placing on keeping and bearing arms. Would requiring registration of religious materials, or placing a one a month restriction on certain book purchases, or requiring a permit (which can be denied at whim) before you can hold a political meeting in your own home strike you as unjustified restriction on the first amendment? Let me make a little argument for you (I don’t actually believe this, but bear in mind that any counterargument to it is likely a counterargument to most gun control proposals): What we need to do is get rid of these ‘assault religions’ like radical Islam. Certainly, the first amendment protects freedom of religion, but the founding fathers didn’t have fanatics committing suicide with planes back in their day. At the time, the only religions in the US were various flavors of christianity, and some mild ‘freethinkers’ and the occasional jew, but certainly no Arabs promising 30 virgins for committing mass murder. While I certainly don’t have any problem with legitimate Muslims, it’s clear that there is no need for anyone to follow dangerous faiths like the september 11th terrorists did. Due to the incredible danger inherant in fringe religions, and the lack of legitimate purpose for them, I think that we should pass a law forbidding anyone from converting to said religions or writing new material on radical Islam. Because Islam in general is the religion of choice for all of the spetember 11th hijackers, and of the vast majority of terrorists attacking the United States, we should also register all practicioners of Islam and owners of the Koran. This would not be used to persecute them, but would merely be used to enable law enforcement to more rapidly identify potenital terrorists in the event that there are future attacks. I would point out that there have been terrorist attacks launched by Christians, and that I would like to register all religions, but I am keeping the scope of this proposal limited as the radical pro-Religion lobby makes it impossible to pass common-sense religious laws today. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/47 "2002-10-18T20:40:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > (for example, I know a lot of people who don’t see the point in barring violent felons from possessing firearms), Heh - that should be **NON** -violent. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/48 "2002-10-18T20:50:31Z")
I didn’t say anything even remotely hostile towards you, **Riboflavin** , so drop the ad hominem “what I’ve come to expect from you” crap or take it to the Pit. The reason I didn’t address your “antitrust loophole” arguiment is because I don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I don’tr debate “loopholes” I’ve never heard of before or been provided authority for. It also sounds pretty darn boring, not to mention that essentially _nobody_ gets prosecuted under criminal law for antitrust crimes. Find me some cites, and find me some actual antitrust felons, then we’ll talk. The reason I haven’t talked about your “prior restraint” argument is that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about not applying unless the regulation is prior restraint. [“Prior restraint”](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html#1) is a complete non sequiter in Second Amendment law–the only area of the law where it has any force as a legal doctrine is the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. So no, UncleBeer, it is not a “good distinction,” legally speaking. The reason I didn’t talk about the right to vote is that it proves my point: The Second Amendment is no more (and actually a whole lot less) inviolate than any other of the Bill of Rights amendments. The reason I spoke of [freedom of association](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html#1) instead of the freedom of assembly is that _you_ wrote about assembly. As you will note in the link provided, freedom of association is one of those “penumbra” rights inherent in the First Amendment–it is by no means simply a synonym for freedom of assembly. And if you don’t like the word “expedience,” open a thesaurus and pick one of your own. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/49 "2002-10-18T20:56:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > Good distinction, Riboflavin. The rest of us missed that rather obvious flaw in Minty’s argument. What argument would that be? As I recall, I have made only _one_ argument in this thread: > [@](#): > > For clarity, all I’m trying to point out is that “It ain’t in the Second Amendment,” by itself, isn’t a valid argument against a particular restriction of the right to bear arms if you believe it allows other such limitations (most prominently, felons and crazy people). ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/50 "2002-10-18T21:13:13Z")
> [@](#): > > What argument would that be? Beats the fuck outta me. I thought you were trying to make a point. My mistake, I guess. Are you gonna address any of the points in this thread? Or simply continue with your side issues and repetitions of a conceded point? Let’s move on. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/51 "2002-10-18T21:31:49Z")
What points? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/52 "2002-10-18T21:51:29Z")
Oh, and I’m not trying to be a smartass there. I honestly want to know what it is that you think I have failed to address. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/53 "2002-10-19T06:32:19Z")
I apologize all for not responding to some arguments presented. I’ve read everything in this thread so far, but I probably won’t have much time this weekend to respond. Riboflavin, I’ll accept your proposed terms for the new and improved 1st amendment if you accept these: 1. Before any member of a governmental committee brandishes a weapon, he or she must first have publicly announced said brandishing so that citizens have the opportunity to witness and record the event. 2. The government has the right to go through your computer just to see if you’ve downloaded any free specs on how to make a homemade gun, lest they be similar in nature to those professionally manufactured. 3. If the police ever ask a gun dealer for a list of all his clients for an ongoing investigation and he refuses because he’s promised confidentiality, he can be jailed. 4. You must support the right of everyone having an equal opportunity to purchase a gun even if you don’t agree with how they plan on using it. How many more should I go through? I just hit the Open Meetings Acts, the DMCA, and reporter shield laws. How does one even transfer libel over to the 2nd amendment? Slander? Sedition? Treason? Trespass? Time Place and Manner? Rational Basis Tests? There are a lot of restrictions on both sides. It works both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/54 "2002-10-19T06:47:23Z")
I apologize all for not responding to some arguments presented. I’ve read everything in this thread so far, but I probably won’t have much time this weekend to respond. Riboflavin, I’ll accept your proposed terms for the new and improved 1st amendment if you accept these: 1. Before any member of a governmental committee brandishes a weapon, he or she must first have publicly announced said brandishing so that citizens have the opportunity to witness and record the event. 2. The government has the right to go through your computer just to see if you’ve downloaded any free specs on how to make a homemade gun, lest they be similar in nature to those professionally manufactured. 3. If the police ever ask a gun dealer for a list of all his clients for an ongoing investigation and he refuses because he’s promised confidentiality, he can be jailed. 4. You must support the right of everyone having an equal opportunity to purchase a gun even if you don’t agree with how they plan on using it. How many more should I go through? I just hit the Open Meetings Acts, the DMCA, and reporter shield laws. How does one even transfer libel over to the 2nd amendment? Slander? Sedition? Treason? Trespass? Time Place and Manner? Rational Basis Tests? There are a lot of restrictions on both sides. It works both ways. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/55 "2002-10-19T17:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m going to admit right from the start of the debate that I don’t really understand the 2nd amendment all that well. I don’t study it, I haven’t studied it, and, while I have no real problems with anyone owning a gun I’m not a proponent of the amendment and it wouldn’t necessarily bother me if the government banned firearms (the impossibility of such an enforecement notwithstanding). I quoted from the first post for the following reason: You seem to want to compare restrictions on the 1st Amendment to restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. How can you do this if you have little knowledge of the 2nd Amendment? Shouldn’t you do some research before you make a comparison? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/56 "2002-10-21T06:30:01Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > [@](#): > > Riboflavin, I’ll accept your proposed terms for the new and improved 1st amendment if you accept these: So, even though you’re a big supporter of the first amendment, you don’t have any problem with creating a national registry of religious materials and banning certain religions? Seriously - you don’t see any conflict with the first amendment in a ‘one book a month’ law, or permits to speak on particular topics handed out at the discretion of the local sheriff, or any of those other points? > [@](#): > > 1. Before any member of a governmental committee brandishes a weapon, he or she must first have publicly announced said brandishing so that citizens have the opportunity to witness and record the event. I wouldn’t have any problem with that if there’s a planned brandishing it should be announced! I don’t think it’s a good analogy to anything. Governmental law enforcement and tax collection officers do have to publicly announce that they will be carrying firearms through a variety of means. > [@](#): > > 1. The government has the right to go through your computer just to see if you’ve downloaded any free specs on how to make a homemade gun, lest they be similar in nature to those professionally manufactured. You mean with a warrant, like is required for DMCA stuff? They can already do that. I support this sort of thing to a limited degree, though the DMCA is way, way too broad. > [@](#): > > 1. If the police ever ask a gun dealer for a list of all his clients for an ongoing investigation and he refuses because he’s promised confidentiality, he can be jailed. Ever since 1968, gun dealers have had to keep a record of every sale which includes the purchaser’s name and the serial number of the gun sold. They have to provide this list to the ATF for inspection any time the ATF asks for it (no warrant required) or be guilty of a felony. IIRC the police need a warrant/ask under a subpoena to require this list, much like they do when asking a reporter for a list of clients (though they can just get an ATF agent to ‘inspect’ the list if the court is not forthcoming with a warrant), and should the gun dealer refuse to provide the list, he is asking to be convicted of a felony, not temporarily jailed for contempt of court. If a gun dealer promises someone confidentiality, he’s either committing a felony or lying about the promise. Now, I don’t support this scheme under general privacy concerns, but I don’t support jailing reporters for refusing to disclose sources either. > [@](#): > > 1. You must support the right of everyone having an equal opportunity to purchase a gun even if you don’t agree with how they plan on using it. Ummm… OK, sure. Are you familiar with what I’ve posted on gun laws before? Aside from criminal use (I don’t support the right of people to use free speech to hire a hit man either) this is something I’ve often argued for. > [@](#): > > How many more should I go through? How many more ‘agree’, ‘don’t agree, but it’s currently law’, and ‘dont’ agree, but don’t agree with the free speech restriction either’ do you want to get? > [@](#): > > I just hit the Open Meetings Acts, the DMCA, and reporter shield laws. How does one even transfer libel over to the 2nd amendment? Slander? Sedition? Treason? Trespass? Time Place and Manner? Rational Basis Tests? > There are a lot of restrictions on both sides. It works both ways. Libel/Slander - Some sort of assault with a firearm lacking justification. Sedition - rebellion maybe, but you’re no supporter of the first amendment if you like sedition laws. Treason - using a gun in commission of a treasonous act? That’s not really a 1st amendment issue anyway. Trespass - Trespass. (whether you’re carrying a gun or speaking, it’s still trespass). ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/57 "2002-10-21T07:35:11Z")
Original quote from John Harrison: > [@](#): > > In the same breath they tell us that they are not anti-firearm and that they don’t want to disarm law abiding citizens. I hate to spoil it for you, but I confess that I am totally anti-firearm and I want to disarm _everybody_. You’ll never be able to make that statement again in complete honesty. Serious question: Do you think that the world would be a safer place to live if firearms had never been invented? BTW, have you thought about who gets to determine if someone is mentally incompetent enough to be committed? Oh dear, it’s _the State…_ ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/58 "2002-10-21T07:36:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I didn’t say anything even remotely hostile towards you, **Riboflavin** , so drop the ad hominem “what I’ve come to expect from you” crap or take it to the Pit. When you stop playing your usual games, I’ll stop pointing them out. You’re simply ignoring arguments that refute what you’re talking about, and it’s perfectly appropriate in GD to point out that someone else is not actually debating major points. You really should just ditch the ‘I’m terribly offended’ routine, we’ve all seen it before when you start getting cornered and I doubt that anyone falls for it anymore. > [@](#): > > The reason I didn’t address your “antitrust loophole” arguiment is because I don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. So, you skipped where I wrote “(people convicted of antitrust felonies, though not other nonviolent felonies, are not generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, though some states do restrict such people)”? > [@](#): > > I don’tr debate “loopholes” I’ve never heard of before or been provided authority for. Why didn’t you just ask for a cite if you don’t believe me? I provided an explanation of what the anti-trust loophole was, and you can read it right in the [1968 GCA](http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/guncoact.pdf). Section 20 provides the antitrust loophole, though I’m not going to bother quoting it. > [@](#): > > It also sounds pretty darn boring, not to mention that essentially _nobody_ gets prosecuted under criminal law for antitrust crimes. Find me some cites, and find me some actual antitrust felons, then we’ll talk. And now the game of dancing as far away from the point as possible! The point is, of course, that while GC types would prefer that no felons be allowed to own firearms, it’s not worth the political cost to expand the law to include felons guilty of antritrust law, especially since there are so few antitrust felons. It’s something that they might disagree with in principle, but don’t feel that it’s worth fighting a political battle over. Much like PG types don’t feel that fighting over felons and firearms is worthwhile. > [@](#): > > The reason I haven’t talked about your “prior restraint” argument is that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about not applying unless the regulation is prior restraint. Neither does the first. But, as it turns out, according to findlaw I’m incorrect in using prior restraint as I did. Fine, then replace “prior restraint” with “restrictions applied to someone before they’ve done anything wrong, much like prior restraint in first amendment law” in the sentence “You also seem to be completely glossing over the fact that the gun control proposals you like so much consitute prior restraint, not restrictions imposed after someone has been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally incompetent.” > [@](#): > > The reason I didn’t talk about the right to vote is that it proves my point: The Second Amendment is no more (and actually a whole lot less) inviolate than any other of the Bill of Rights amendments. The reason you didn’t talk about the right to vote is that it invalidates your point, that second amendment advocates want the second amendment to be treated differently than the rest of the constitution. As I’ve said repeatedly, removing rights from someone using due process of law as punishment for a crime is very different from removing rights from an ordinary citizen. > [@](#): > > And if you don’t like the word “expedience,” open a thesaurus and pick one of your own. Ahh, another one of the standard tricks; aside from the old standby of just ignoring what I wrote, you’re also pulling the switching definitions trick. My objection to what you said was (as I already told you, but am repeating for the benefit of observers) that PG people had said that it wouldn’t be **expedient** to fight some part of the restrictions on felons, not that they support said restrictions because it’s expedient to have said restrictions in place. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/59 "2002-10-21T19:24:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Serious question: Do you think that the world would be a safer place to live if firearms had never been invented? To answer seriously, no. Humans have been killing humans with any number of tools, including their bare hands, since, IIRC, Cain killed Abel. For relatively current events, we have Einhorn convicted of killing his girlfriend 25 years ago by bludgeoning her to death with a wine bottle. A Kennedy (Skakel?) convicted of killing a debutante with a golf club. A few months ago a deranged janitor slashed about 25 children and adults at a Japanese school, killing eight. Just in the last week a bomb exploded in Bali, the latest count is approximately 200 dead. A few weeks ago a tribal court in Nigeria sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690/60 "2002-10-21T20:21:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I hate to spoil it for you, but I confess that I am totally anti-firearm and I want to disarm everybody. You’ll never be able to make that statement again in complete honesty. Yes, I can because the original comment was made for the anti-gun organizations, not so much for individuals. (ie. Zoe) > [@](#): > > Serious question: Do you think that the world would be a safer place to live if firearms had never been invented? Sure. Same thing with cars, airplanes, knives, pointed sticks, etc… But I prefer to stick with reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-vs-2nd-amendment/132690.md?page=4)