Guns and freedom

[David Floyd]

Let me begin by saying that I am not opposed to the second ammendment, though if the government has the right to limit all other 20 odd ammendments to the constitution, if it can regulte freedom of religion and speech, then it can damn well also regulate guns. if there are things I can't say for national scurity,then there are guns we can't own for th same reason.

Here's where your problem is. The government actually CAN'T "regulate" (which in this context means take away) ANY right for reasons of national security. They may well do it, but that's because enough people let them get away with it.

If we shot them the first time they tried (and I mean all the way back to shooting or stringing up those responsible for the Alien and Sedition Acts, and everything on forward, conscription, etc.), like we quite frankly should have, then we wouldn't even be having discussions about whether or not rights can be limited for reasons of national security.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I sort of agree, GePap... guns can be regulated, just like other Constitutional rights can be regulated (1st Amendment - Can't shout fire in a theater, libel, etc.). To that end, I have no problems with having licenses for guns owners. I support the idea, but it must be a state issue, not a national one.

[David Floyd]

I sort of agree, GePap... guns can be regulated, just like other Constitutional rights can be regulated (1st Amendment - Can't shout fire in a theater, libel, etc.).

The problem with this argument, Imran, is that shouting "fire" in a theater infringes on the rights of others. Owning a gun never infringes on the rights of others. Shooting someone certainly does, but shooting someone is already illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem with this argument, Imran, is that shouting "fire" in a theater infringes on the rights of others. Owning a gun never infringes on the rights of others. Shooting someone certainly does, but shooting someone is already illegal.

And what right does shouting fire infringe on? The panic that follows infringes on a right (if someone is hurt), but the actual act of yelling does nothing.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And what right does shouting fire infringe on? The panic that follows infringes on a right (if someone is hurt), but the actual act of yelling does nothing.

What right does firing a gun at somebody infringe upon? The bullet wound (and maimery/death that ensues) might infringe on a right, but the actual firing a gun at somebody does nothing.

[David Floyd]

Well, by that argument the actual act of shooting doesn't hurt anyone, either. It's when you aim at people that people get hurt.

The reason shooting randomly is illegal is, obviously, because there is a very high probability of you hurting someone.

Similarly, the act of shouting is fine. It's when you use your words to cause people to panic, and end up trampling each other, is when the problem comes in. It's not their fault for panicking, just as it is not my fault for being in the way of your bullet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason shooting randomly is illegal is, obviously, because there is a very high probability of you hurting someone.

If you use probablity then you can outlaw automatic weapons because there is high probablity that using it will hurt someone.

[loinburger]

Handguns are far more likely to be used in a robbery/murder, though.

[David Floyd]

If you use probablity then you can outlaw automatic weapons because there is high probablity that using it will hurt someone.

Of course you can outlaw shooting automatic weapons randomly in public. I've never argued otherwise.

But just because someone can commit the act of shooting an automatic weapon randomly in public doesn't justify banning automatic weapons, any more than the fact that someone can commit a murder with a handgun justifies banning handguns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But just because someone can commit the act of shooting an automatic weapon randomly in public doesn't justify banning automatic weapons, any more than the fact that someone can commit a murder with a handgun justifies banning handguns.

So why ban poision gas or nuclear weaponry from being acquired from citizens?

[David Floyd]

So why ban poision gas or nuclear weaponry from being acquired from citizens?

I think you know my views on property rights

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh yes... you are nuts .

[David Floyd]

Fair enough - and you aren't a Libertarian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course I am.

Not all libertarians have to be wacko .

It's like say a pro-choice Republican like Whitman or Ridge aren't Republicans .

[David Floyd]

OK, I'm not going to get into this debate