Quote:You know, you may be on to something here. I know that I, personally, would be more upset if pizza was banned, than say, one subset of firearms, like in the ban expiring in 2004. Still, if banning pizza for 10 years would save 100,000 lives and over a million injuries, I think I would have to at least consider it. Especially if one of the deaths was to my kid. You wouldn't?
Those kinds of deaths happen now with all kinds of things. People kill more often using cars, for instance, than guns every year. The utilitarian benefit outweighs the cost, the same as with firearms.
Quote:Why do we have a need to explain a right?
Quote me in the constitution where it says the clip capacity is a right... I'll wait
Quote:Those kinds of deaths happen now with all kinds of things. People kill more often using cars, for instance, than guns every year. The utilitarian benefit outweighs the cost, the same as with firearms.
It was a simple yes/no question. But I just want to confirm. If over a ten-year period 100,000 people included your child would die if you did not ban pizza you still would not ban pizza for those 10 years. That is your utilitarian decision?
Quote:Quote me in the constitution where it says the clip capacity is a right... I'll wait
Quote me where it says its not. Quote me where it says government can regulate firearms period. It doesn't.
Quote:Yes.
OK, then. Man, and I thought
I really liked pizza.
Quote:Lol, I was hoping you'd repost your thoughts I this thread from the other thread.
To me, reducing the number of mass killings by 33% or whatever the amount may be is worth the loss of choices of arms to bear.
I agree with you and out conservative friends that barring entire groups of people that are but on "a list" which is not transparent and open to public scrutiny is an awful idea and clearly is unconstitutional based on due process alone.
So I circle back to military style or modern sport rifles, or whatever cute term one may want to attach to these arms...
As we all know, there are already restrictions on the type of arms one can buy. Let's look at fully automatic guns, they are illegal. Are you less free because you don't have one? Next, consider the argument that if you make it illegal, then only the bad guys will have them.
In regard to mass shootings, how many of the shooters or terrorists used an automatic? I believe the number is very close to zero. So that argument does not hold water to me.
At the end of the day, if a military weapons and ammo ban lessens the number of mass killings by any significant amount, it's worth doing.
In the previous iteration of the weapons ban, a small group of folks could own these arms. Why not allow gun ranges to own these weapons, that way people could go shoot them when they wanted to?
Living in New Mexico, I know a ton of guys that hunt. None of them go out with their tactical arms to hunt elk or other game they get licensed for.
Therefore, if one is only using these types of arms at the range, why not make them range only weapons that must stay with the business?
That's my take on it...
No it isn't. Your first part saying that an AR-15 or a Sig Sauer MCX are "military weapons" is just false, so stop. While yes, someone in the military, specifically Special Forces might choose to use one of those weapons as their "weapon of choice", neither one is "issued" to any military member routinely. If that military member chooses that weapon, it's usually customized to fit the need including enabling automatic firing.
Ponder this for a bit. How many AR-15's are legally owned and used by law abiding citizens (including myself) right now? Of those, how many are used for malicious reasons?
To give an analogy, how many people own some kind of computer? A computer is routinely used for malicious deeds including identity theft, defacing websites or just plain stealing among other things. Should we ban certain computers because they are more powerful or have larger capacity for storing data?
Regarding your second point, a few things come to mind off the top of my head.
First of all, firearms can be dangerous to the user if not maintained properly. I would not use a "public" weapon on a shooting range because I have no idea how previous users treated it, and I don't know how the weapon is maintained.
Second of all, people don't own firearms strictly for hunting. Some shoot for sport, others have them for protection, some collect them, etc. I don't need the government telling me that if I want to own a certain model or style of firearm it must be for an "approved" reason.
Finally, not all shooting, including sport shooting takes place at a gun range. Here's a little secret that I'll let you in on. The last few times I've done some shooting it's been at a friend's place which is located in a very rural area on 40+ acres of property. He happens to be a Law Enforcement Officer. Some people enjoy shooting their multi-round, pistol-gripped rifles at places other than public shooting ranges.
Quote:Quote me where it says its not. Quote me where it says government can regulate firearms period. It doesn't.
Well, first part is pretty simple, do a word search on clip capacity in the Constitution. And pretty sure that well, at least since Marbury vs Madison, the Constitution is interpreted by the courts. and Pretty sure the courts have done so, like in 1939 in Miller vs US.
Quote:OK, then. Man, and I thought I really liked pizza.
People will die because of pizza. They will die because of cigarettes. They'll die because of cars and they'll die because they don't get 45 minutes of vigourous exercise 3 times a week. Are you willing to force people to do or not do what you think they should because it's good for them?
Quote:Well, first part is pretty simple, do a word search on clip capacity in the Constitution. And pretty sure that well, at least since Marbury vs Madison, the Constitution is interpreted by the courts. and Pretty sure the courts have done so, like in 1939 in Miller vs US.
Yes, the courts deciding what your rights are. What the Constitution was designed to prevent.
People like to bring up automobiles. And that's fine. It's true. A lot of people die in car accidents. But we don't say "Now's now the time to talk about banning people from talking on their cell phones while driving. It's my right to text and drive at the same time!" No, we outlaw it. We also have speed limits (which are more than just suggestions, despite some people feeling otherwise). Speed is another major factor. Drunk driving is also illegal, and we have sobriety checkpoints.
Quote:People like to bring up automobiles. And that's fine. It's true. A lot of people die in car accidents. But we don't say "Now's now the time to talk about banning people from talking on their cell phones while driving. It's my right to text and drive at the same time!" No, we outlaw it. We also have speed limits (which are more than just suggestions, despite some people feeling otherwise). Speed is another major factor. Drunk driving is also illegal, and we have sobriety checkpoints.
Yes, all things I'm opposed to.
Quote:Yes, the courts deciding what your rights are. What the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Tell ya what, maybe if it is such a terrible thing, you can start a new thread on how Marbury v Madison and the principle of judicial review was so terrible, how the US has been hosed since 1803 because of it, and we can discuss it Our you can decline, and it can just be a poorly thought one-shot from you.
Quote:Yes, all things I'm opposed to.
Well, ya walked right into that one, Doc. Sounds like flsprtsgod is a hardcore libertarian. He said earlier than even if the consequences of a ban on pizza for 10-years was that 100,00 people including his child would die, he would still not ban that pizza. of course, the example earlier in the conversation was ANY LAW. So I am also presuming that if the ban were not on pizza, but on any particular subset of any food group, even fugu, he would ideologically agree. No ban, sorry, baby, the idea of bans being bad is more important than all those lives, including yours. Btw, how is the fight for fugu legalization going?
Quote:Quote me in the constitution where it says the clip capacity is a right... I'll wait
Shoe me in the constitution where it says we are a nation of enumerated rights?
Still waiting to hear the wonderful things gun control is doing in Chicago.
Quote:Shoe me in the constitution where it says we are a nation of enumerated rights?
<insert Inigo Montoya image here>
Edit - Oh, heck, better clarify, not the 'you killed my father one'. :woot:
Quote: Tell ya what, maybe if it is such a terrible thing, you can start a new thread on how Marbury v Madison and the principle of judicial review was so terrible, how the US has been hosed since 1803 because of it, and we can discuss it Our you can decline, and it can just be a poorly thought one-shot from you.
It's really become your thing to suggest people start other threads. What I said is fact, the Constitution was written to provide for what the government may and may not do. Regulating firearms clearly falls into the "may not" category, though the government has been trying to do so ever since.
Quote:<insert Inigo Montoya image here>
Edit - Oh, heck, better clarify, not the 'you killed my father one'. :woot:
The Constitution does not delineate the rights of the people, it limits the power of the government to restrict them.
Quote:One wonders if the Founding Fathers anticipated the development of the type of weapons and the scope of violence we have today, and whether it would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Are you insinuating that a philosophy that was developed 250 years ago might be antiquated, hippy!?!