Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Page 8 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14 Next

Do you think a US gun ban would work?

Yes	9%	[ 5 ]
No	56%	[ 31 ]
Somewhat	16%	[ 9 ]
Unsure	7%	[ 4 ]
I hate guns and have an unreasonable aversion to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
I love guns and have an unreasonable attachment to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
(Those last two were tongue in cheek)	4%	[ 2 ]

Total votes : 55

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

23 Dec 2012, 4:54 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

Seabass wrote:

I actually find Jacoby's argument not to be poor, and find your post to be a bunch of fluff. Natural rights are the rights you find in the Declaration of Independence, you know, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Although there have been differing views on what makes up natural rights in the past, the idea of natural rights is pretty much set in stone by now. The Constitution revolves around the existence of natural rights.

We are talking about the 2nd Amendment. He responded to a point on the 2nd Amendment. You say it is fluff, I say it is Law.

Fluff can't be tested, it is a principle of law that a piece of legislature needs to be able to be tested to work, therefore cannot have a vague implied concept tagged to it, because somebody says so.

My point was to those that cite the 2nd Amendment rather than any other law (which there are some other). It a criticism of citing the 2nd Amendment in this context. Can I make this any clearer?

Please tell me where the 2nd mentions those bulleted points that I mentioned wasn't covered. It doesn't, it is pretty clear plain English. Feel free to get a historical language expert. It is about the right to bear and keep arms, with regard the security of the free state, and it mentions a well regulated militia.

This is one point separate from opinions on gun control. The reason for mentioning this is ignorance of the 2nd Amendment.

If you disagree with me at least make your points about the 2nd Amendment.

It has been explain quite clearly. If you do not want to accept it then that's your issue.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 4:57 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

1000Knives wrote:

Actually, Prohibition's main backers were women's rights groups. Husbands would waste all their money at bars, or get drunk and beat their wives. They weren't concerned about liver problems. It was about the effect the drunk people had upon others.

I think it was actually religious pressure, Religious Temperance campaigners still exist, but in small numbers. There were women's groups, however there was also some women would get drunk.

I dunno, from what I've read, the main issue was the violence alcohol caused, not "oh, you might get liver cancer." The main point was people were concerned about the effects alcohol had on others. And one thing with women was, women, it wasn't proper for them to drink, especially hard liquor. So what women would do instead of drinking, they'd take laudanum, or other patent medicines containing opium/heroin/codeine/etc.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 5:03 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

you cant carry a knife in england or just certain types of dangerous knives like switch blades or long blades

I am not sure exactly what the law is, but if you are carrying a knife and can't explain why, or are carrying it for self defence, then you are in trouble.

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Much the same way that we in England and Wales are getting knives off people who aren't willing to give them up. Arrest anyone who is seen with a gun or a knife in public, charge them with carrying the weapon, and impose the relevant punishment. If someone is arrested on another charge and then found to be carrying a weapon, charge them with that offence too. Encourage people to inform the authorities anonymously if they know someone is carrying a gun. In some places- schools where large numbers of pupils carry weapons, for example- it might be relevant to search people before they enter (I imagine this applies more to knives than guns).

So like I said, you arrest them using threat of violence. Violence with weapons. But it's okay for them to do it since they agree with you.

I'd love to see you acknowledge that your problem isn't with guns, but with people who do things you don't approve. You're obviously fine with guns being used to furthur your own cause.

No, you should not use the threat of violence, and certainly not the threat of violence with weapons. The only time I am okay with guns being used by anyone against another human being is to stop someone committing multiple murders when a taser or other restraint is not possible. I am against having an army, and in an ideal world I am against any police being armed- I would certainly be opposed to every policeman being armed. I am fine with recreational guns that are designed to be as safe as possible, for activities such as paintballing or clay shooting, as long as these activities only take place in designated areas so they are not forced upon anyone.

I imagine the vast majority of the time, people will not be willing to shoot a policeman who tries to arrest them for openly carrying a weapon. Once they have done that, they are a murderer.

Would I not be right in saying that someone who carried a gun on a concealed carry permit but did not conceal it would be arrested at present in the US?

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

23 Dec 2012, 5:12 pm

Religious groups in combination with women's suffragists and miscellaneous progressives. There was a lot of crossover.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

23 Dec 2012, 5:25 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

you cant carry a knife in england or just certain types of dangerous knives like switch blades or long blades

I am not sure exactly what the law is, but if you are carrying a knife and can't explain why, or are carrying it for self defence, then you are in trouble.

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

It depends on where it is. In Arizona, you can open carry and concealed carry without a license. In New York City, you'd go to prison. Places with open carry laws a lot of the time, generally in the larger cities, you might get a disorderly conduct ticket for carrying in plain view.

As for the rest of you post, you support using force to enforce your views on other people. That means violence and that means guns.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 5:27 pm

Jacoby wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

you cant carry a knife in england or just certain types of dangerous knives like switch blades or long blades

I am not sure exactly what the law is, but if you are carrying a knife and can't explain why, or are carrying it for self defence, then you are in trouble.

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Yes, there would be a person with a rifle making sure the person would not escape from the prison they were sent for carrying a weapon.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 5:28 pm

No it doesn't.

Seriously, is there anyone here who is against the police arresting people?

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 5:42 pm

There are red. yellow and green lights that control our behavior when driving a car,

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 5:45 pm

Jacoby wrote:

It has been explain quite clearly. If you do not want to accept it then that's your issue.

Nope. You are saying the Constitution is about natural rights (fair enough), then implying that each Amendment or at least the 2nd Amendment contains all of those natural rights or all relating to guns. This is a logical fallacy, and not what the 2nd Amendment says. You are adding concepts the the 2nd Amendment not in the meaning.

That basically all there is to it. The 2nd Amendment covers some things, but not others, and it can be misappropriated. There are other laws that cover other things that are more relevant to those positions.

If the 2nd Amendment is a basis for a position (which it needn't be), then it is important that it is not misappropriated.

So you do have a right to bear and keep arms, and the 2nd Amendment gives that right because defense of the free state rather than any other reason, it mentions this within the context of a well regulated militia.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 5:48 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Seriously, is there anyone here who is against the police arresting people?

For a moment there, I thought you might be interested in presenting a coherent argument. Then you say something like this and I wonder if you're really participating in the conversation.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 5:52 pm

shrox wrote:

There are red. yellow and green lights that control our behavior when driving a car,

But I can drive a Corvette that can go like 170MPH or something, and do whatever I want with any vehicle I want if I'm on my own private property.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 6:06 pm

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Seriously, is there anyone here who is against the police arresting people?

For a moment there, I thought you might be interested in presenting a coherent argument. Then you say something like this and I wonder if you're really participating in the conversation.

Wait, you attack me, and say that because I don't like guns, I advocate violence against gun owners, and because I support arresting people who break the law, I advocate violence, and then when I challenge the presumption that arresting someone has to be violent, I am accused of "not wanting to participate in the conversation"?

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 6:20 pm

1000Knives wrote:

shrox wrote:

There are red. yellow and green lights that control our behavior when driving a car,

But I can drive a Corvette that can go like 170MPH or something, and do whatever I want with any vehicle I want if I'm on my own private property.

Do you have these red, yellow and green lights on your property?

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

23 Dec 2012, 6:37 pm

1000Knives wrote:

shrox wrote:

There are red. yellow and green lights that control our behavior when driving a car,

But I can drive a Corvette that can go like 170MPH or something, and do whatever I want with any vehicle I want if I'm on my own private property.

Unless you make a noise that disturbs others, for example.

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

23 Dec 2012, 6:45 pm

shrox wrote:

1000Knives wrote:

shrox wrote:

There are red. yellow and green lights that control our behavior when driving a car,

But I can drive a Corvette that can go like 170MPH or something, and do whatever I want with any vehicle I want if I'm on my own private property.

Do you have these red, yellow and green lights on your property?

No. But all I'm asking for is the ability on private property to shoot barrels, logs, or whatever as long as other people or their property isn't harmed by it, with whatever gun I choose. Once I take it and use it off my property is where the law can step in somewhat, I'll concede there.

For example, using the Corvette, even if my Corvette wasn't street legal (emissions or whatever,) I can still take it on a trailer to a race track and drive it around. Also, even if I had like 8 DUIs or something in the past, I'm still allowed to use said Corvette on my own or someone else's private property and keep it in my driveway.

So for me, gun control is less an issue of carry and use as it is simple property rights.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 6:57 pm

1000Knives wrote:

...So for me, gun control is less an issue of carry and use as it is simple property rights.

OK, that's pretty clear.

Page 8 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14 Next

Jump to:

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work? Post Reply New Topic

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?