No, we don’t have a government system of rating citizens.
to say what the Chinese government is doing is a bit different is mind boggling.
It’s not irrational to be concerned about the level of information collected on individuals. It’s being done now. Europe just enacted sweeping laws regarding privacy rights as it is applied to information gathering.
I don’t have any fears of the government because we have a solid base of rights.
I was not referring to AR-15s. I was suggesting that some of the posters in this thread seem to think we have no gun regulations at all, and that is just wrong. Sorry if I was not clear.
That’s not what a slippery slope is. A slippery slope is when you see something happen, and you assume that it will inevitably continue down a path, with nothing able to stop it. That is the assumption that you have made.
Yes, that is the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.
Good example. To think that because there are “people who want to ban guns or the majority of them in the US.” and to think that because those people exist that they will be able to control the national conversation and dictie terms would be a very foolish fall into that catagory. I’m glad you were using that as an example of a slippery slope fallacy, rather than something that you actually believe.
We whittle away at the first amendment all the time. You can’t publish child porn, you can’t publish state secrets, you can’t even publish stuff that is in public, but claim it as your own without attribution. Go look at Cody’s Lab youtube channel for his complaints on what the first amendment doesn’t let him do.
If you felt the same way about the 2nd as the vast majority feel about the first, then you would agree that there are many reasonable restrictions that can be made to the ownership and carriage of guns that do not have any sort of slippery slope concerns. But, you either consider 2A to be much more important than 1A, or you are extremely ignorant as to the limitations of 1A.
Well, yeah, we do, ever hear of the criminal justice system? In any case, just because it is a private corporation doing things like credit scoring, rather than the govt, shouldn’t actually make you sleep better at night, if it the activities that are making you so fearful.
I don’t understand this claim of yours. Are you saying that the US is doing the same as the Chinese?
If you are concerned, then don’t put so much info out there. Sounds like Europe is now the area that you are praising for their privacy protections, when just a post ao you were condemning them for frowning on hate speech.
I don’t have any fears of the government because I’m not paranoid.
I disagree that there are any posters here who are under that impression. They may feel as though we don’t have any effective gun regulations, they may feel as though having the gun regulations that we do have is no better than having none at all, they may even feel as though we have no regulations, as they feel that wearing a string bikini is like wearing no clothing, but as to the fact that there are no gun regulations at all, I seriously doubt that there is anyone confused on that point. Did you have some examples of what makes you think that the posters are wrong on this point?
Why are guns categorically different than any of the other things that were considered worth the explicit protection of the Bill of Rights? Can free speech be too effective? Printing presses too high-capacity? Can a religion have too many adherents?
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Remember this?
We own this country and if they try to take away our rights we will have bloodshed.
This.
If people want to constrain the 2nd Amendment to 18th century technology, then shouldn’t the same be said about the 1st? It therefore shouldn’t apply to any electronic media, right?
But if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and laws are passed to confiscate those guns (per the OP hypothetical,) then those rights do not legally exist anymore.
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or “God-given”) rights, and not act as a permission slip. There was actually a huge debate in the nascent country: some felt that we needed to enumerate rights so that people don’t try to take them away, others argued that by creating a list of rights implies that other rights don’t exist.
In the context of the sub-discussion I thought we were having, yours is non-responsive. AFAICT, you’re agreeing with the post I’ve bold-faced.
So France and the U.K. and other fascist countries with gun control are defying the Will of Yahweh and can expect a fate like Sodom and Gomorrah?
It’s a figure of speech, not a biblical phase. The scare quotes aren’t an accident.
Got it. Alternate facts. Alternate words. Mexico will pay for the Wall.
It all fits together.
I’ve asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn’t it found *only *in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that “God-given” stuff really come from?
Yes, if We The People pass a law you don’t like, you proudly assert that you won’t abide by it and will try to kill any of our cops who come to enforce it. Perhaps you ought to reconsider who The People actually are and who the Bad Guys actually are, hmm?
There you go again. Your argument is quintessential slippery-slope fallacy. Again, it is merely a proud assertion of your refusal to enter into a discussion of a position which you are not confident you can defend by argument.
Granted that many people who would like to remove limitations on gun control don’t necessarily advocate zero guns. Got it. The problem is that gun control advocates are basically complaining that guns are too good at what they do. It’s a bit contradictory to say you’re OK with guns provided they’re hobbled, restricted guns. Imagine treating free speech that way: “we don’t want anyone who criticizes the President to be put in prison; we just want reasonable bounds on hate speech and fake facts”. Needless to say, people will have sharply differing opinions on what is “reasonable”.
And once the precedent has been established that weapons have no special protection, that they’re just another thing that falls under the general regulatory power of the government, then given the dubious record of gun control in actually improving society, the natural tendency will be to double-down. Ban more and more and even if it never works “at least we’ll be trying”. Even when at some point restrictions and bans become not merely useless but counter-productive.
It’s like the right-wing view on global warming: Moving goalposts. It isn’t happening. It’s happening but it isn’t man-made. It’s man-made but it isn’t harmful. It’s man-made and harmful but next quarter’s profits would suffer. The economy’s in trouble, why didn’t you liberals warn us about global warning earlier?! :smack:
Similarly: Guns only kill bad people. Only bad people’s guns kill good people. Good people kill good people accidentally, but the victims are mostly liberals too stupid to know about gun safety. Guns can’t be banned without repealing the 2nd Commandment. You can’t repeal the 2nd Commandment: it was written by the Finger of God atop Mount Sinai.
Amusing.
Methinks that the smarter ones have enough self-awareness to know Thomas Jefferson and the other FFs would roll over in their graves if they saw all the dumb rednecks toting AR-15’s and invoking the FFs! That’s why they’ve switched to blaming Yahweh instead of the FFs. Who can argue with God? (If you say God didn’t mention guns to you, you’re just a liberal atheist who doesn’t even watch Pat Robertson TV.) Of course it’s OK to kill the jackbooted liberal gummint thugs when you’re serving God !!
In #171, there seems to be a claim that the Second Commandment’s Divinity is just hyperbole. Can we get a comment from the other gunnists on that claim?
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you think making guns illegal would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or that they wouldn’t be able to get them you’re wrong.
First if that were true then we wouldn’t have an illegal drug problem in the US. We have a long list of drugs that are illegal and unless you live in a very tiny town, the odds are you can get any drug you wish with little or no problem. So, making those drugs illegal didn’t stop criminals from not only getting them but also selling them.
Second criminals get guns even in places where they are banned or restricted. True they have fewer shooting as the criminals move on the cheaper methods bombs, trucks etc. for mass murder, but you’ll notice the murder rate stays about the same or follows the same trend as before any ban. Australia being an example of that after their “ban” it wasn’t really a ban, but they restricted many guns, the murder rate went up then back down then continued the same trend as before the ban, on a downward trend.
Third the plans for build a fully automatic gun (machine gun) are freely available on the internet and use common parts, and if you don’t already have all the tools you can buy them at harbor freight for a very small price. We’re seeing more and more of these on the street, with the rise of more restrictions on guns.
Forth and the biggest one, we can now 3d print guns, the semi-automatic fired more than 600 rounds, yes that was the lower receiver, which is what the government defines as a gun. All the other parts can be purchases without a background check or built with common tools. So sooner than you think any gun law, ban, restriction will become mute as far as criminals are concerned, need a gun print it out, toss it away when you’re done. No real way to trace it.
As to your last point, assuming you could get all the armed forces to go along with attacking fellow Americans on American soil and didn’t have a number of armed forces members join with those fighting. And assuming they ignored all the rights of those fighting, and the president would agree to kill an American, on that point you do have recent history on your side on this on as Obama order an American killed in a country in which we were not at war with, but tell me how did that work out in Vietnam? Or better yet, how did the British do against the IRA? That’s the kind or war you’d be looking at, so while there may be a tank sitting on the corner. It wouldn’t stop the guns and it would probably lead to a huge split in this country.
BTW here’s the short list of what the IRA turned in
1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 hand guns
100+ grenades
And don’t forget they were all banned. And that just what they turn in who know what they didn’t turn in, just in case that deal went south.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson for one would be aghast that citizens are forbidden by most state’s laws from drilling as military companies; and that many people now say that only the government and its enforcers can be trusted with guns. Whether you think that’s right or wrong, it’s 180° opposite from the ideal the FFs endorsed.
If you want to be a member of the National Guard, just go find a recruiter and raise your right hand. That’s all a member of The People has to do. Well, then learn what it really means to be well-regulated, too.
You do seem to be quite unclear about what the writers of the Constitution meant for a militia to do. They did tell us, though. Please read the entire document, find out, and get back to us.
There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising those rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do.
The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state’s ability to “well regulate” its militia.
To say that the FF’s “recognized” this pre-existing right and enshrined it into law would require that they also prohibited states from restricting guns, and they most certainly did not do that. They made a compromise allowing states to make their own laws, and 2A is only a promise that the fed will not interfere with the states on gun laws, allowing them to set the laws they way they felt was best. Now it is turned around, and the fed interferes with states on gun laws, not allowing states to set the laws the way they feel is best. Anyone for state’s rights should be against 2A restricting states ability to set gun laws.
We have no rights but the ones that we grant to each other. Rights not enumerated do not exist.
No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies.
That a gun is good at what it does, killing people, is why we should make some effort to make sure that the people holding them will be responsible with them.
We do have many, many reasonable bounds on speech. If I were to go in public, and say that (your real name here) is a criminal who does these specific criminal acts, and then I call for violence to be taken against you, my speech will be curtailed, do you think it should not be?
We agree to reasonable restrictions on both speech and guns, so it is not a matter of whether or not reasonable restrictions are acceptable, it is only a discussion about what is reasonable.
A discussion on what is reasonable is a good discussion to have. An adamant statement that no gun control is reasonable because of 2A is not only wrong from the start, but never leads to any sort of productive discussion.
It is not banning guns that is the motivation of the vast, vast majority of those in favor of reasonable gun control, so the constant refrain of banning guns is a strawman.
It is people that should be banned from having guns, based on their demonstrations of responsibility. If you are shooting your gun off in the woods with your friends, and you kill some kid in the back seat of a car driving down the road through the woods, do you think that you should lose the right to have a gun, at least for a little while?
While there are many who think that a mistake, even though it ended in tragedy and senseless loss for a family, that the person who pulled the trigger is punished enough by knowing what he did, he shouldn’t lose his gun, I personally think that not only should he lose his gun, so should his friends that were also shooting off, as well as anyone else caught firing in public areas without taking the diligence of ensuring that they have a proper backstop.
People who make threats against the school, their work, their domestic partner, neighbor, or against politicians and public figures should have an easy way to remove them from their guns. It should be a no-brainer that someone making such threats should be heavily restricted from having access to guns, do you disagree with that?
If a criminal really wants a gun, they can get a gun, sure. But if a criminal doesn’t really want a gun, they can still get one very, very easily. You can get a gun off the black market for less than you can in the gun store.
If that changed, and the supply of guns flooding into the black market slowed down, due to higher restrictions on sales and storage, then guns will be more expensive on the black market, and they will be harder to get ahold of.
If you really, really want one, then you can always get one. I’d like to see it limited to only those who really really want one, and are willing to go to great expense, effort, and risk, in order to get a gun, rather than simply having a gun because it was cheap and easy to get.
Drugs are far easier to smuggle than guns, and they have a much, much higher value based on either weight or on volume. They also have a steady market, where you have returning customers over and over, building up a relationship and lowering the perceived risk for both dealer and purchaser, as opposed to gun purchases, that would be more infrequent, and would be a higher risk entailed for both seller and buyer.
Stopping the flow of guns into the hands of criminals is impossible, you are correct, but drastically slowing the deluge that is available is very doable, so long as we do not insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good.
Fewer toddlers shot though, right?
These are once again objections that you consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Yes, people can do things if they dedicate themselves to doing them. The problem is, is that right now, they can do these same things on a whim. Putting up barriers to someone’s access to lethal weaponry will dissuade the vast majority from very easily and casually acquiring guns for use in crime will reduce the guns used in crime.
To object that it will not drop it to zero implies that you do not think that any laws at all should ever be passed or enforced, as no law has ever had 100% compliance.
The armed forces wouldn’t be attacking because they are ignoring the rights of those fighting, if it came to that, the forces would be attacking because you have carried through with your terroristic threats of making a bloodbath if you don’t get your way democratically.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective?
2A did call for a well regulated militia, and it would be the states that are regulating that militia according to the constitution. What do you have against the constitution, that you would limit a state’s constitutional right to regulate its militias?
The FF’s absolutely thought that the govt should have a monopoly on violence, and granted the states the ability and rights to enforce that.