2nd Amendment trumps free enterprise

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you give an example as stupid and disingenuous as aspirin to counter my example of pharmaceuticals as property that is restricted to "just one owner"?

Because it crushes your argument?

Fine, I'll refine my example to "prescription pharmaceuticals"

Is there a constitutional right to ingest prescription pharmaceuticals? If so then restricting them to prescriptions is unconstitutional.

[loinburger]

So when you said "we don't restrict any other property to 'just one owner'", what you really meant was "we don't restrict any other property that is mentioned in the Constitution to 'just one owner'", i.e. "we don't restrict guns and slaves to 'just one owner.'" Which is an incredibly fatuous statement.

[Ben Kenobi]

So when you said "we don't restrict any other property to 'just one owner'", what you really meant was "we don't restrict any other property that is mentioned in the Constitution to 'just one owner'", i.e. "we don't restrict guns and slaves to 'just one owner.'" Which is an incredibly fatuous statement.

Thank you Jeffrey. What I mean is that the right to own a gun is constitutionally protected. The right to consume pharmaceutical drugs is not. Ergo, one would expect constitutional laws to treat them differently. That folks like yourself reject the 2nd amendment is why you obscure this crucial difference.

[loinburger]

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to sell a gun?

[DinoDoc]

Ben: Here is a better argument for you to be making: 'Smart' guns, dumb idea

[loinburger]

Pretty much any argument is better than the one he's making

FWIW, on the face of it, smart guns seem like a dumb idea - they basically sound like a more complicated, less reliable, and less secure version of a trigger lock. But it's retarded to say that it's unconstitutional to sell them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to sell a gun?

Guns have the same protection as the rest of private property.

[Ben Kenobi]

But it's retarded to say that it's unconstitutional to sell them.

It's unconstitutional to restrict them to only one owner, which was the argument you were making earlier that this was ok.

[loinburger]

Guns have the same protection as the rest of private property.

You made this claim earlier that all private property can be re-sold, to which I said that prescription pharmaceuticals are an example of private property that can't be re-sold (or even given away), and then you said "no wait, what I actually meant is that the Constitution says that you can sell your guns," to which I asked you to point out where in the Constitution it says this, to which you went back to your original claim that all private property can be re-sold.

[DinoDoc]

FWIW, on the face of it, smart guns seem like a dumb idea - they basically sound like a more complicated, less reliable, and less secure version of a trigger lock.

Indeed. Nothing I've read about them thus far assuages the concerns of practicality someone might have regarding these weapons.

But it's retarded to say that it's unconstitutional to sell them.

Correct. I tried to help Ben by giving him an example of a more cogent argument against "smart" guns than the one he was using.

[Ben Kenobi]

Correct. I tried to help Ben by giving him an example of a more cogent argument against "smart" guns than the one he was using.

Eh, I'd rather tackle the underlying motivations behind such things in the first place. Notably, that people reject the 2nd as well as private property ownership. They'd support confiscation if they thought they could get away with it.

[Ben Kenobi]

You made this claim earlier that all private property can be re-sold, to which I said that prescription pharmaceuticals

That's because possession and distribution of a controlled substance is something that's regulated. Now, I know you believe that selling guns is a bad thing, but dealing drugs is good. The constitution says the exact opposite.

your original claim that all private property can be re-sold.

Are you arguing that private gun sales are illegal?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Please stop arguing with Ben

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Pretty much any argument is better than the one he's making

FWIW, on the face of it, smart guns seem like a dumb idea - they basically sound like a more complicated, less reliable, and less secure version of a trigger lock. But it's retarded to say that it's unconstitutional to sell them.

Aren't trigger locks unconstitutional? I mean, you wouldn't be able to sell your gun to anyone unless the sale includes the trigger locking mechanism.

[Dr Strangelove]

Was anyone being forced to buy only smart guns? The problem with this type of smart gun is that if you wanted to keep it for emergency protection then you'd store the watch beside it or near it. A thief would likely steal the watch too. The system wouldn't even necessarily prevent little Johnny from accidently killing his little friend. Imagine little Johnny picking the gun up and running downstairs to play cops and robbers. They run around the house, then Johnny hides by Daddy's gun cabinet and waits for his friend to enter the room. When Johnny pulls the trigger the weapon is less than 10 inches from the watch so "KABLAM". Boy, will Johnny and his little friend be surprised!