6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[Sava]

Hey David, does that mean its okay if I own a nuclear weapon?

[David Floyd]

Hey David, does that mean its okay if I own a nuclear weapon?

I'm not going down this road because its a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is also a minefield.
If I say "yes", you'll turn that into the main topic of the thread and use it to hit me with ad hominems.
If I say "no", you'll call me a hypocrite.

So it's lose-lose, and I'm not getting into it.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sava
I witnessed a shooting when I was at the University of Illinois. A bunch of gang members tried coming into this party I was at. When some guys from a frat told them they couldn't come in, they came back and one of them shot one of the frat guys. I was 20 feet away from it.

Did the gang members have their FOIDs? Were they carrying concealed? I thought that was illegal in Illinois.

Re: nuclear weapons.

Gosh, Sava. You dragged out the nuclear weapons fallacy. Surprise, surprise.

If that's really a concern, why not go look up the section of the Constitution dealing with amendments and get one passed forbidding nuclear weapons. Otherwise, stop going to absurd levels to shore up your argument.

[David Floyd]

why not go look up the section of the Constitution dealing with amendments and get one passed forbidding nuclear weapons.

Oh we don't bother with amendments anymore. The process is too bloody inconvenient. We just pass whatever ol' law we feel like these days.
Sad but true.

[Az]

If I say "no", you'll call me a hypocrite.

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Azazel

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

Well, a Belt miner fighting off pirates might need one.

Oh, you meant on Earth.

[David Floyd]

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the right to property are not limited to self defense, are they?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


How does that have ANYTHING to do with the right of government to restrict private property?

Why shouldn't the public be allowed to hear both sides of the argument? Are you saying that the people on this forum should not be allowed to gauge the effects of the policy of unrestricted gun access? Are you saying that the effect of the policy on people's lives has no bearing on the argument?

[David Floyd]

Why shouldn't the public be allowed to hear both sides of the argument? Are you saying that the people on this forum should not be allowed to gauge the effects of the policy of unrestricted gun access? Are you saying that the effect of the policy on people's lives has no bearing on the argument?

I'm saying that such emotional arguments have no place in rational discussion. Emotions should never be used as a justification for denying someone their natural rights.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the right to property are not limited to self defense, are they?

We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

It's also well known that the second amendment was put in the Constitution to placate some of the more paranoid southern states; it was meant to allow them the security blanket of having their own militias to protect them from the Federal government. They revolted anyway, and they lost. At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Hmmmm......Here's an idea. Some future rational Federal government should convince some like minded state government that it should sue to get back it's state militia. The Attorney General puts up a weak fight, then agrees to surrender the suit on the provision that the language of the Supreme Court's opinion clarifies the fact that the second amendment was only intended to grant the states' rights to have their own militias. Then the Federal government will be free to pass some effective gun regulation.

Sweet, huh?

[David Floyd]

We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

Through an amendment, of course. Try getting a gun-banning amendment through.

At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Wrong, because the wording of the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms.

The Attorney General puts up a weak fight, then agrees to surrender the suit on the provision that the language of the Supreme Court's opinion clarifies the fact that the second amendment was only intended to grant the states' rights to have their own militias.

That won't be anytime soon, what with the current Court and the likely Bush appointees

Actually, Bush's appointees (if he appoints people similar to his own views) are likely to push through an opinion with the opposite language - and it's pretty rare that a future Court directly invalidates the decision of a previous Court.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

It's also well known that the second amendment was put in the Constitution to placate some of the more paranoid southern states; it was meant to allow them the security blanket of having their own militias to protect them from the Federal government. They revolted anyway, and they lost. At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Care to prove *that* little assertion?

(...trying to stay diplomatic. Though I do wonder if there's a pony hiding somewhere in your words.)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Uh... so why is England's violent crime rate (with handguns even) going up?

Still isn't within screaming distance of the US murder rate.

...and making guns completely illegal will stop criminals from breaking the law how, exactly?

Don't be obtuse Even you assume that nobody who breaks that law would ever be caught buying the gun (thereby stopping the gun related crime before it happens), making guns harder to obtain will reduce the chance of them being used. Fewer guns in society makes them harder to use in impulse crimes.

If breeding anthrax in basements was a popular hobby, would you support that, too?

[David Floyd]

Oh, and one little point Dr Strangelove. The National Guard and the militia are totally separate. The Guard was created by an act of Congress, while militias, according to US law still on the books, consist of every able bodied and willing male. So even if you argue that the right to bear arms only extends to the militia, it won't get you very far.

[Lars-E]

There are a lot of crimes in the USA where guns are involved. Not?

Look to other countries where there is gun control. Less gun-related crimes.

And the slogan of the NRA... Pure rethoric and nothing but so imo.

"Guns don't kill ppl - bullets do" is on the same level..