You know? This thread is becoming a bit too rancorous. The pro-gun side makes a claim. The anti-gun side says, “Oh, yeah? Well, what about this?” The pro-gun side engages in some hyperbole. The anti-gun side says, “See? That proves you’re a rabid lunatic!”
All of this mud-slinging and hysteria is unproductive. It’s obvious that neither side is going to change the mind of the other.
I’m pro-choice. If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one. Pro-choice is also used on the issue of abortion. Beinf pro-choice, I say that if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t get one. What gun control and abortion have in common is that the opponents want to abolish something the proponents see nothing wrong with. Another common factor is that both issues have supporters and detractors who vehemently support their positions to the point of fanaticism. And fanatics are seldom swayed by the other side’s arguments.
I think the time has come to stop the demonization and mud-slinging and to just agree to disagree.
Wow, Hitler and Stalin posts in the same thread. If you Pol Pot, you’ll have the trifecta!
So, on what basis do you assert that “substantive restictions on the right to bear arms” is, like, in the same freakin’ galaxy as killing 25,000,000 people? Let’s see, in the European Union alone . . . 15 member nations with substantial to insurmountable gun restrictions, 25M dead people each . . . that adds up to 375 million dead people.
Is the phrase “sense of proportion” one you’ve come across before? **
[/QUOTE]
You were saying that it was correct to oppress other people if they posed some sort of threat to you, that it was “self defense” to remove their natural right to own guns. I said that it might be correct on some level, but it follows the same logic as killing your own citizens because they might pose a threat to you. Do you disagree with the logic?
How about the Constitutional Republic of the United States? At least, say, the first 180 years, when people still were wise enough to abide by it, rather than have this "Constitution? Ha. I’m enlightened, I’m only concerned about modern enlightened mob rule wants.
Except that, if you ascribe to the “Cold dead hands!” position, it’s not agreeing to disagree, Johnny. If you were really agreeing to disagree, you’d also agree to accept whatever democratically-enacted gun control measures happened to be enacted, just as those of us on the other side accept the current state of the law that gives you a basically unfettered right to keep and bear arms. (At least, I haven’t heard Sarah Brady threatening to kill gun owners if a nationwide registration system isn’t put in place right away.
Reserving the right to veto with a bullet is not agreeing to disagree.
Beef: If you’re threatened with a taser, it is reasonable to respond with a taser of your own. And yes, I disagree with that logic, in the same way that I would disagree with executing people who drive too fast rather than, say, setting a speed limit. It’s just silly.
Again, I never said anything about “cold dead hands”. And I am willing to accept reasonable restrictions as long as they don’t violate the spirit or the word of the Second Amendment. I think that some of the existing restrictions, and those that are proposed, are not reasonable.
As someone else said, we should not pass laws based on “why shouldn’t we pass it?”, but upon “why should we pass it?”. I contend that more restrictions will not reduce crime. Otherwise, people wouldn’t rob, rape, murder, or do anything else against individuals and society. We already have laws to punish wrongdoers, and we already have laws that restrict firearms to certain people. We need to punish those who break the laws; not make more laws that they will ignore.
Well, I did say “if” you ascribe to the cold dead hands theory. Some people certainly do, though, including one of my best friends, and it’s a personally troubling position to me. But no offense was intended, Johnny.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you that what society should be debating is whether we should pass gun control legislation, not whether we can. The desirability of any particular gun control measure is certainly open to debate and legitimate disagreement. What frustrates me is the position, unsupported by the law, that gun control is per se verboten. That is a position that seeks to close off public debate altogether, rather than encourage the well-informed experimentation that should be the hallmark of a democratic society.
I’m not quite sure I get you. You want a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution can’t be changed, but people with guns are allowed to ignore, or violently disobey it if they don’t happen to like a particular law created through the procedures outlined in the Constitution?
Yeah, I’d like to see some “well-informed” experimentation too. Too bad most gun laws are knee-jerk reactions to extremely rare events. I call it “exception-based legislation”.
By the way, what “well-informed” experimentation would you consider having conducted against the 1st Amendment? The 4th? Any of them?
You know, I really think you miss the point. Gun owners have already given up many, many things. Groups like the Brady Bunch would have us give up more, and more, and more, until we have nothing. Most gun owners think they’ve given up enough, and don’t wish to be nickel-and-dimed to death. Why do you disagree? It certainly seems like your opinion is that gun owners won’t cooperate, so I want you to tell us exactly what more you think we should give up.
Oh, and risking the fact that I might be labeled a cold-blooded killer, if anyone on your list, minty, was actively trying to kill me, I would defend myself. Would you?
And once again you only respond to the parts of people’s posts that you think you can easily dismiss. How about you respond to something substansive, like this:
So, please tell us what more we should give up. You seem to think that the “current state of the law that gives you a basically unfettered right to keep and bear arms”. What other reasonable (in your mind) fetters would you institute?
Oh, so sorry. I meant to say that almost every single one of his/her posts in this thread is a troll post. Semantics ya know.
I’d start with comprehensive, nationwide handgun registration, universal background checks (for private transactions as well as sales by licensed dealers), manufacturing regulations designed to render new guns inoperable by anyone other than their registered owner (as an antitheft measure) and (if feasible) a system for leaving a unique identifying mark on each shot fired , which marks would be registered in a databate and available to law enforcement personnel.
And other than that, you can go talk to yourself, Demise. You have been repeatedly abusive to other posters in this thread, and I have no desire to further feed your unwillingness to post with a even modicum of respect and politeness to your fellow posters.
I was using the example of being raped with a taser as a random unpleasant thing. My point was that he was ascribing this “Kill anyone that does what I don’t like!” mentality to me - and I said the counter to what he was saying that was someone wouldn’t defend themselves if they were locked in a basement and being tortured. I happened to use “raped by a taser” as a colorful example, but I wasn’t trying to make an example about non-lethal weapon, it was just a choice of description.
That’s why I was confused by what you said. I guess I made my statement ambiguous and you took it the wrong way.
At no point in this thread did you ever even remotely suggest the idea of amending the Constitution. I’m saying that just ignoring what the Constitution says and passing laws in spite of it is a relatively recent phoenomenon, largely. In the first 150+ years of this country, things were far from “every man for himself”, yet we garunteed people their individual rights.
Try to understand our position. We have 20,000 gun laws on the books. New measures that would only infringe on a law abiding person’s ability to defend themselves are coming into Congress every day. Every time one of these things slips by, we lose more and more of our rights.
The professed goal of the largest gun control organization in this country is to completely eliminate gun ownership. They have stated that they will take incremental steps under the guise of “reasonable gun control laws” to accomplish this goal.
Pretty much none of these new laws is going to stop any criminals, they’re just going to impose a burden on legal gun owners. They’re just steps to the stated goal of total elimination.
Give us some credit. We didn’t just say “anyone restrict my guns and I kill you!”, we’ve been battling with hundreds of new gun laws that don’t do anything but restrict us. We’re tired of it.
Oh, forgot one thing. The suggestions you made, your opening sentence mentioned handguns specifically. Are the rest of your suggestions limited to handguns, or do they include long-guns too?
And yet your sencond substansive post to this thread consisted of you bashing “gun-rights folks” because we apparently totally ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment, we are ignorant of how courts work, and that we think that anti-gunners are un-American and evil.
I think that shows your level of respect in great detail.
