Reply With Quote
No. I favor limiting access, and education as to dangers. Education, and fees.
Shocking overrreach, I know.
Meh. Only rich people own $10,000,000 dollar mansions.
Ref: non sequitur
No. I favor limiting access, and education as to dangers. Education, and fees.
Shocking overrreach, I know.
Well why aren't you so upset about those 88,000 people per year that you want to ban alcohol? I mean if it's all about the lives lost to you and you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives why wouldn't you want to do the same to save 88,000 lives per year?
Fortunately, the limitations we've placed on who can consume alcohol, and where they can consume it, have done a lot to keep that 88K from being much higher.
The arguments against voter ID laws can be applied here as well. The same person that can't drive to get an ID can't drive for their annual inspection, pay for the annual fee, pay for liability etc. the poor would be priced out of legally purchased protection.
So who is taking magazine-packed bottles of alcohol and rapidfire slamming the bottles over the heads of 88,000 people who don't want alcohol? This is extraordinary!
You gotta do better than this.
"I secretly stashed the Glen Livet in my pant leg, withdrew the finely tuned scotch, and proceeded to fill shot glasses for 100 people. After the surprise, 47 were dead, 53 injured. All the non drinkers on my list were swiftly annihilated... They knew nothing concerning the sipping of a fine spirit."
Last edited by pgardn; 06-30-2016 at 05:03 PM.
RG isn't talking about limitations on guns. He's advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a complete ban on gun ownership "to save lives". I'm just curious why he doesn't care about those who are dying from alcohol.
Should alcohol manufacturers be held liable for deaths caused?
If you can't afford to upkeep with gun law requirements/restrictions, then your worry should be about getting a job (not you personally), not a gun.
One would assume the cost of registration and other fees would factor into gun pricing over time in a supply/demand system.
No, as I said repeatedly, I am not talking about a complete ban on guns, any more than I would want a complete ban on cars.
Owning guns should be a privilege, just like it is a privilege to operate a car. Meet certain criteria, e.g. physical capability, knowledge of laws, etc, and you can have one.
I just don't think it needs to be in the cons ution. It isn't that important.
Not strictly.
They should be subject to a tax, which they pretty much are already, to compensate society for the true cost of their product, aptly pointed out by Snakeboy:
This is a really, really good point.
I am upset over the harm that things do, as you should both be as well. Do me/yourself a favor: Look up the concept of "negative externality":
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Mar...rnalities.html
As a concept, it is a very, very useful one, and having it as part of your conceptual framework for thinking about public health things like this, enables one to reach better policy solutions.
Let me know when you have read that bit.
the bull from the gun fellators, aka, suckers for BigGun propaganda
y'all want to repeal the 2nd amendment
y'all want to confiscate all guns
y'all want to ban all guns
Everybody has a Cons utional right to have all guns anywhere, all the time, no control at all.
Since gun control is not in the Cons ution, gun control in unCons utional.
etc, etc.
The difference though, between a bottle of beer, and an assault rifle, is that I can't use a beer to mow down dozens of people, who would ultimately have gone on to have meaningful lives.
As noted above, he has a really good point, and revealed something you might agree with:
Gun violence is a public health issue.
Just like drug usage.
I think shifting the way we view the problem, from one of absolute rights, to one of measured consideration of costs/benefits, would make us all better-informed.
But there is no cons utional right to have a car. A car is therefore a privilege.
With the way the 2nd amendment has been interpreted, you can't really call gun ownership a privilege. There has to be a distinction between laws you think should be in place vs laws that are cons utional
So you'd be cool with guns if not for the mass shootings that account for a tiny percentage of total gun deaths?
It sounds like RG is advocating for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which is not without precedent.
Goes against the whole "the right is overreacting, nobody is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment" stuff though
It's important to look at what was also said by others at the same time. Pretty obvious they were not strictly talking about only the militia being armed.
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Cons ution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
******'s Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Cons ution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Cons ution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the cons ution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world des ute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The cons utions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Cons ution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
Yeah because RG embodies the left's leadership. And again the SCOTUS has been bipartisanly consistent even if they do actually try.
Im sure they believed in weapons to be used in self defense. But they didn't put that in the Cons ution. I'm sure they also believed in heterosexual marriage, but they didn't put that in the cons ution. They may have meant something but they specifically wrote in "well regulated militia." That doesn't jive with some guy after the fact saying "oh the militia is the whole people."
And original intent often fails with technology. It's not reasonable to expect a centuries old do ent to accurately depict current times. Can civilians have tanks for self defense from the government too?
To lighten things up a bit regarding guns:
I'll share that I met my husband directly because of GUNS. He and my cousin were out shooting and planned to go bowling afterwards, but didn't want to leave the guns in the car so my cousin said, "My cousin lives 10 minutes from the bowling alley. Why don't we see if we can leave them there?" So the first time I saw my husband he was toting guns into my mom's house. I was folding laundry and they invited me along for bowling. See, what some of you see as "bad" turned out good in our case and I didn't even have to leave my house to find him - was meant to be.
AFter the Bill of Rights was passed the Federalist and other publications wrote articles to explain them to the people. A lot of what he quoted was from that.
It doesn't say what he wants though. If the militia is everyone then everyone should be well regulated. SCOTUS has been consistent in not allowing confiscation without criminal cause as well.
It's amusing NRA types acting like they know more than SCOTUs justices who pretty obviously are honoring those ethics.
The explanations in the federalist papers ultimately aren't in the Cons ution. Just because Barry said you can keep your doctor as an explanation doesn't mean everybody was able to keep their doctor
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions