I guess it would depend on context. Thinking in absolutes is something I try to stay away from. So does your Supreme Court.
I have a thousand more “gotcha hypotheticals”, any of which would have shown the lie in your claim that the government doesn’t (“or shouldn’t” as you misinterpreted) regulate bedroom activity.
No, I have a very clear point. Bedroom activity was brought up as an example where the govenment has no right to interfere with you. But that’s wrong, and leads to sloppy thinking.
Now that that’s out of the way with, I’d like to say that I’m actually coming more and more around to a pro gun ownership stance (well, more towards it than I was before). One reason was that I guess I never really believed they were ever effective in preventing crime. Someone showed a few documented cases were it was - a very effective demonstration. Still, I’m not all the way there by any means.
Think of it like I’m helping you to weed out the absolutely untenable arguments. Ones that won’t score you any points with anyone but those who are already on your side.
- Comparing it to banning cars because cars kill more/as many people. This is a non-starter of an argument for most thinking people. The comparison is bad because no one wants to ban cars. We are all pro-car (yeah, I know there are some but they are really on the fringe). The comparison is also bad because of the utility argument - cars only kill people as a side consequence of their main purpose which is to provide us with everything we need to live life they way we like it. That’s pretty compelling.
Gotta take a phone call.
So you’ve decided to go with weaseling?
The SCOTUS has never found that a violation of any Amendment was a ‘sorta violation’. It does indeed deal with absolutes, and laws are struck down all the time as being unconstitutional, not “kinda not very constitutional maybe.”
Now, would you or would you not say that not those support the 1st are wacko survivalists? Or is it only those who support the 2nd?
Or will you only weasel?
Do you not even know what the word “lie” means?
And while you’re bullshitting in order to fabricate claims of lying, please don’t also bullshit to fabricate claims of “misinterpretation”. One bit of prevarication per paragraph, if you please.
Saying that the US government does not have the right to regulate private behavior among consenting adults is, indeed, saying that it should not. The US government can, and has, done all sorta of things it didn’t have the right to do. That doesn’t mean it should have done them. It’s also correct that, legally, the US government does not have that right.
And on a purely factual point, you’re ignorant. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas all struck down your absurd notion that the government has the right to dictate the sexual behavior of consenting adults.
You might want to learn something about American jurisprudence before you hold forth on it, eh?
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:504, topic:492005”]
And on a purely factual point, you’re ignorant. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas all struck down your absurd notion that the government has the right to dictate the sexual behavior of consenting adults.
QUOTE]
Prostitution is OK then? Consenting adults, no “gotcha” animals involved.
I was quoting from Heller, so, yes. Yes, there is. And that would be ‘lever’ action. By number, the three types are relatively miniscule compared to the number of semiautomatic weapons.
I asked: Is there anything at all beyond current law that you would find acceptable as a restriction on either gun posession or manufacture? Anything at all?
You repled:
When I asked if that even extends to 5 year olds having guns, you related a story of how you were shotting responsibly at that age. You could have said no, that’s not ok, but your story suggested you don’t have a problem with that either.
BTW, I also misspoke. I said: Even restricting parents from taking steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that?
What I meant to say was: Even restrictions forcing parents to take steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that?
Since what I actually said was crazy on it’s face, I apologize for that.
You’re very specific here. Does this mean they can own, posess and carry weapons on their parents’ property?
You said:
I interpret this to mean that you are okay with forcing people to purchase gun locks with their guns. Whether it comes in the same box, or you have to buy a second box with a lock in it at the time you buy the gun is just a matter of packaging.
I agree that I overstated what you said about actually using the locks. Upon second reading it seems you would agree that there may be some circumstances where using them is required, but not in the home.
I disagree with that.
.
I do appreciate that you think that at least some restriction on firearms are a good thing.
But all these items at the bottom, that you’re okay with, are they all the law of the land now? Wouldn’t implementing them require new laws?
If so, how do you reconcile that with your answer to my question where you stated:
And remember, I asked if there was anything, anything at all, you would find acceptable in the way of gun control laws.
Well, now you’ve provided a list, instead of a flat and absolute denial. Thank you. That is progress. You might even call it compromise.
Personally, I think there’s a difference between “meaningful regulation of firearms aimed at preventing crime while preserving people’s rights” and “gun control”–the latter seems usually to be applied to mean banning various weaponry, as opposed to licensing it and regulating it but continuing to allow law-abiding citizens to own and operate it.
You’ll find, if my experiences are any indication, that as soon as the national gun control lobby starts taking gun-type bans off the table in a meaningful, complete way, the average NRA type will be much more likely to consider regulation as appropriate. The historical context is that many NRA folks believe (I can’t cite what precedent they’re thinking of, maybe someone who knows better can) that registration/licensing and tracking of firearms ownership is a obvious precursor to “knowing where the guns are so the cops can take 'em when they’re completely banned”. Since there are people at least in the local gun-control lobbies who in fact hold this exact strategic viewpoint (this is what I hear when I attend local Democratic party meetings) you’ll find many of us gun owners wary.
Basically, neither side trusts the other to negotiate or compromise in good faith. I mean, look at the “assault weapon ban”–even after explanations that the ban only covers cosmetic features of little to no practical criminal use, the gun control folks are largely still in favor of it because (so it seems) they simply do not trust that gun-knowledgeable people are telling the whole truth about it. Or the continued comments that gun ownership is primarily for people who are scared or who need a portable metal penis. Or the reciprocal distrust of any scheme that means the cops know who has what guns, or the comments that people are idiots for not knowing the specifics of what the components mentioned in the AWB do.
So long as the parent approves. Of course, the parent would be held (more?) liable for anything the child did, than he would for something someone else would do.
In fact, I can think of a few scenarios in which it would be a good thing a minor would carry a pistol on private property.
16 year old, out boar hunting, for instance, with a crossbow. He should probably carry a pistol with him, incase he hits it in the rump and piss it off. Those things can do a lot of damage, and move really fast, if they’re pissed off. I’ve never hunted them myself, of course.
Actually, in my idea there are no restrictions on firearms. There are restrictions on the people carrying the firearms. And that’s not ‘gun control.’
No, they’re not. It would require A) all of the states implement the licensing programs independently (some already do), B) a federally mandated/run program.
Because what I’m talking about isn’t ‘gun control,’ in fact, it’s liberalizing the gun laws (liberalizing = making more free) in a few states, and keeping them the same in others.
Nope, yet another stupid gotcha attempt.
The sex acts that make up a prostitute’s job, between consenting adults, are not subject to the law. The commercial transaction is.
Are you really this dense?
That’s a distinction I’ve never heard. To my recollection, controlling who may possess guns is called “gun control”. I’ve never heard any other term used. But if you prefer the term “people control” or something else, more power to you.
Wong shot off almost 100 bullets in a minute and a half. That firepower is needed to protect your home from motorcylcle gangs and zombies. But these guns being available to nuts around the country will result in public massacres. Protecting your home is one thing. Guns that spray bullets are anti personnel weapons on a large scale. They do not fit into a weapon for protection. They are overkill.
That’s not the right weapon for zombies. You need a head shot, so you would want something a bit more accurate.
Depends on what level you’ve reached.
Hey, look! It’s gonzomax!
I bet he has his cites all lined up to prove this:
and this:
No, wait…he doesn’t. I guess he’s just a lying sack of shit who has no credibility whatsoever in gun-related threads.
A standard bolt-action rifle can manage about 50 aimed rounds in 90 seconds if you know what you’re doing. I’d estimate you could get it up around 70 if you just kept working the bolt and pulling the trigger and reloading when it went “click”.
But- and here’s the thing- 50 rounds of ammunition would, assuming 1 death per shot, result in the biggest “Lone Nut With A Gun” massacre in history- but that same 50 rounds would also only just be enough (and maybe not even then) for pretty much any centrefire (or handgun) target shooting competition, which would involve no deaths per shot.
And even a Winchester lever-action rifle will fire 2 shots a second; I’d hardly consider a Winchester Model 1873 a n “anti personnel weapon on a large scale”.
Handguns existed at least as early as 1715, but they couldn’t save you from the Predators.
Boyo Jim:
We gun owners have been reasonable and have compromised again and again and again and again, and every time some one does something bad with a gun, people like you come back and have the sheer fucking gall to insists that gun owners “be reasonable” and accede to your views of “rational gun control,” and when we disagree, you say things like, “Well, there’s no basis for communications because you’re just not rational/reasonable.”
You said very nearly those same words to Todderbob. I’ve read those words from others on this board, in the news.
Someone upthread made a nice analogy on compromise: if gun owners want 0% gun control and gun banners want 100%, then compromise is 50%. But gun banners come back and want more restrictions, so we again compromise, and the line is now at 75%. Rinse, repeat.
I say we’ve compromised enough.
Do you mean that this hunting of gonzomax over pages and pages of different threads is because of fucking blunderbusses? Jesus.
No, it’s because gonzo assertted a bald-faced “inaccuracy” in GD, wouldn’t back it up with a cite, ran away from the original thread, and then comes into other similar threads and makes the same blatantly untrue assertion. Again.
Is that your standard of “debate?” Oh wait, we’re in the Pit aren’t we?
And why are we debating in the Pit? Is it because the “Ban Them Now” crowd has resoundingly lost every rational, moderated debate in GD?