General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Cars were regulated like Guns are:
( This was posted in another thread, but I am making an OP about it )
Here's a thought:
Guns - cars. We get that analogy all the time.
"Well, cars kill people - should we outlaw cars?"
Um....we sure as fuck regulate them!
In order to drive a car, you must pass a driving test, show ID to get a license, and follow LIMITS - honor speed limits, drive on the correct side of the road, park in the proper place, acquire insurance, not drive impaired, keep children in car seats, wear our safety belts, not run people off the road, keep emissions standards in some places, etc. These are all government regulations on our car use. If you don't follow them, you lose your right to drive.
No, the right to drive was not addressed in the Constitution because we didn't have cars, but none would argue that in this day and age we use guns more than cars.
If we treated car ownership as we did gun ownership, we'd let anyone drive, no regulation, no speed limit, no insurance necessary, you could strap the kids to the top of the car ( rather than the dog ) you could go 100 miles per hour in your subdivision, or drive on the damn sidewalks if you wanted.
You could drive cars that spew oily smoke, that didn't have windshields, you could drive as drunk as you wanted ( "why take away MY right to drive sloshed just because some other sloshed fool killed a family of seven with his pickup?" would be the argument there ) , you could park wherever you wanted whenever you wanted. In short, it would be vehicle anarchy.
Fortunately, we realized that cars can be deadly, so we regulate them and force people to register them and we put limits on what kind of vehicle they can drive on the road and how they are allowed to use those vehicles.
So the car/gun comparison is a weak one, unless you are in favor of more control over deadly weapons.
Gun psychos won't ever quit trying to tell us we have no right to protect ourselves as a society from the gun nuts and their version of gun rights anarchy ( as witnessed in Aurora ) but goddamnit I'm sick of the fucking car/gun comparisons....
That is all
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Drunk driving laws are a "broad brush smear" of all the people who a) don't drive drunk, or b) drive drunk but never hit anybody!
Broad brush smear, I tell you!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I should be able to drive with a fifth of Jack atwixt ma' legs if'n I want to! I ain't kilt nobody dammit!
And if I wanna drive my Duece with the flamethrowers on the back and rocket launchers on the front, it ain't nobody's bidness!
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)How I roll! Druuuuunk!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)My rights are bein' infringed!!!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the right to drive drunk while shooting shit
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)the differences between regulation of ownership of guns and cars (registration is some states, etc) aren't the same things as regulation of the actions taken with either object. They have nothing to do with each other.
thus the actual gun-related equivalent to your "I should be able to drive with a fifth of Jack atwixt ma' legs if'n I want to!" example would be advocating making it legal to, say, commit armed robbery. I trust you see the problem with this line of argument...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am unaware of any similar restriction on picking up your gun. And as I understand, a lot of homicides are related to gun and alcohol use.
This is particularly true in domestic violence cases, I suspect. No. I don't have the statistics and I doubt that any exist because I am not sure that the police even bother to test for alcohol abuse in many domestic violence cases. Getting drunk in your home is not against the law.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is to say, an officer could arrest you for "reckless endangerment" if you were holding a loaded firearm while under the influence. Obviously they could if you were actually pointing it at anyone (regardless of whether you were drunk or not), but I think it could happen even if you were just holding it. Not positive, either way...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)to carry a gun into a bar for 2 years.No incidents of a problem in that time.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)And wasn't one of our state legislators caught driving drunk with a loaded CC?
I'm sure there are more examples.
I have no problem with CCP's, anyway. Never said I did. I carry, but not CC.
Plan on taking the course soon.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)the alcohol diatribe.But yes,there was a legislator that got a DWI while a gun was in his car,the gun played no part in any of it except another charge tho.
I dont know of the girl in Knoxville,although it wouldn't surprise me.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)WASHINGTON - May 27 - Arrests for murder and a murder-suicide are among the new incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders detailed in the May update of Concealed Carry Killers, a Violence Policy Center (VPC) on-line resource (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) that tallies news reports of such killings. Since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 166 individuals, including nine law enforcement officers.
Among the new incidents included in the May update are:
Tennessee--On April 15, 2010, concealed handgun permit holder Norman Bren Whitton, 69, allegedly shot and killed fellow retiree Larry Butcher, 74, after a road-rage incident at an upscale East Tennessee retirement village involving Whitton's Cadillac sedan and Butcher's golf cart. Whitton was charged with second-degree murder.
snip
Private citizens were killed in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida (16 incidents), Georgia, Idaho (two incidents), Indiana (two incidents), Kentucky (two incidents), Massachusetts (two incidents), Michigan (nine incidents), Minnesota, New York, North Carolina (five incidents), Ohio (nine incidents), Oklahoma (two incidents), Oregon, Pennsylvania (seven incidents), Rhode Island, South Carolina (two incidents), Tennessee (nine incidents), Texas (three incidents), Utah (five incidents), Virginia (seven incidents), and Washington (two incidents).
(emphasis mine)
You can access the pdf here: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
(I can't get it to open)
Kennah
(14,352 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Me personally driving with a bottle of whiskey between my legs - and slugging it while I drive - is not intent to harm, it's intent to drive in whichever state of intoxication i desire. If I harm no one with this action, why would that be regulated? I haven't assaulted anyone or taken their property.
Armed robbery is taking away another's property with INTENT to do so, as well as threatening them with bodily harm as an INTENT.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)No one who posted your initial outpouring of logically-challenged nonsense should be calling any other argument "stupid." Just sayin'...
In any case, the analogy is sound in terms of the actual point being made: the categorical difference between ownership of a tool and one's behavior with that tool. Do you understand this differentiation?
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)And you are conflating personal choice that harms no one with a personal choice that does do harm.
Your saying that driving with an open bottle in the car is the same as armed robbery would be like me saying that a parent who owns a lot of guns and 30 round clips is the same as a parent who abuses their children.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I said it was a resort to insult...which you have now admitted was the case (not that it was in question).
And no, I am by no means "conflating personal choice that harms no one with a personal choice that does do harm." The analogy was based on the categorical difference between ownership and behavior, not on the outcome of the actions taken. As I previously explained...
"Your (sic) saying that driving with an open bottle in the car is the same as armed robbery ..."
Straw man. Again, I wasn't positing a broad equivalency. I was stating, by obvious implication, that they are both behaviors. Which they are.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Armed robbery is willfully setting out to do harm.
Drinking and driving is not willfully setting out to do harm, but we regulate it because it MIGHT do harm.
Just as owning semi-automatics is not willfully setting out to do harm, but we can regulate that ownership because it MIGHT do harm.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Regulation based on a significant and demonstrable probability of harm is perfectly reasonable. On the mere possibility? That's a bit trickier...but the basic principle is a valid one.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)How many pictures do you have to take to get that one you were looking for? Shooting is like that, a skill that has to be developed and practiced. The joy comes from accomplishing a difficult task.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I would argue that our entire socio-economic structure is built around the auto. Had we had the auto when the Constitution was written, I imagine driving would have been a "right." It's time to fucking step out of 1776 here, folks. Take off that three-cornered hat and put on your Reality Cap.
Are you saying that the right to own a gun is more integral to our society than the right to drive a car? ( And I would argue that the Commerce Clause would probably cover the right to drive. )
Really?
And it isn't me bringing up the car/gun comparison, BTW. I just addressed it...
On edit: meant Amendment IX, not Commerce Clause...too much going on
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It is an important distinction.
Now as far as your oblique attempt to insult me by insinuating that I'm some kind of a teahaddist, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact I am of the very few Americans that has said for decades that our Constitution was a buggy alpha that has been enshrined as inviolate in a myth of divine inspiration despite its enormous flaws and lack of functionality. But be that as it may, the fact remains that yes, because of our unwillingness to address the deficiencies of our Constitution the right to own a firearm is superior to the privilege of driving.
Oh and you should have written it 1787 or 1791, 1776 was the Declaration of Independence.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (2)
edit cuz I done wrong...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that there are countless precedents at the state and local levels that specifically deny that it is a right. If a right to drive were ever recognized it would throw a large part of the Judicial into chaos as most of those revenue generating laws they've passed over the years would be thrown out.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)put up that talked about shooting with a camera.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They assumed their right to travel freely. Unfortunately, they did not put their assumption into the written Constitution. It was part of the culture of the time.
Any laws regarding horses and wagons, if they existed would have been, I assume, local.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)to give us, I think they would have stayed British.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a right to drive or that it is not a necessity for too many of us, but the fact remains that there is no right to drive.
If there were a right to drive most of the laws surrounding cars and driving would be unconstitutional, so there's another deficiency in The Constitution.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)subject to reasonable regulation. That's what I think -- reasonable regulation. Neither the right to travel and therefore to drive nor the right to own a gun is absolute.
I would like to see a requirement that gun owners insure their guns -- against theft, against damages to themselves and others. To drive a car you have to have insurance. I think that you should have to carry insurance to own a gun.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)by every state and locality in America in order to keep those restrictions you list on driving. If driving were a right, the state could not take it away without the whole mechanism of due process and that would be too expensive and time consuming.
Firearms OTOH are specifically protected.
I think one of the Big Issues this points out is the terrible deficiencies in our Constitution. Another is our collective abdication of our responsibility to build and maintain our society. But that's another issue and thread that nobody wants to take on as it gets so very messy so quickly.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)right, it would be subject to regulation.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Ammunition in cartridge form, much less semiautoatic weapons with high capacity clips would similary not be covered by the Constitution.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to which certain rights were not and did not need to be regulated in the simple, low-population society of the 18th century, most of our rights are subject to reasonable regulation today. And when it comes to the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly which our Constitution specifically states is not to be abridged, our government at different levels impose a lot of regulations which are more or less reasonable. So, rights that were pretty absolute in 1776 are no longer all that absolute. With regard to the First Amendment, I personally find a lot of the "regulations" to be far too restrictive and expensive.
I think the idea of requiring gun owners to buy insurance for their guns is an excellent one.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That is all.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).
I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)Sounds like a judgement to me.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Thats a really neat trick you have there. I thought mind reading was just a sham.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I have no doubt that driving would have been an enumerated right.
There have been many cases over this issue:
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274: Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210: "Every Citizen has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty."
Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S. W. 513:
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. "
Just a few to ponder....
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Sometimes it really does seem that they knew what they were doing.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)ownership in the modern world, referring to modern weaponry that did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights were written, how can you then turn around and say that the right of travel in the modern world is not covered under the old right to travel freely?
So the Constitution covers firearms but hasn't evolved to cover travel?
That's just crazy.
By your logic, the only guns you should be allowed to own under the 2nd are the very guns that were around in the late eighteenth century. Nothing more.
If my car doesn't count as travel, your AR-15 doesn't count as "arms."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Or, ah, lack of it.
Thanks, its been real nice having you read my mind and speak for me, but I've grown tired of that parlor trick.
You have yourself a nice day.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Awww...
Guess you have no answer then.
So, to reiterate FTW: if AR-15's constitute protected "arms," I guess that means my car constitutes a protected "mode of travel."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Never needed to, as you continually told me what I thought, meant, and said. Why stop now. You have created your own answers for me up until now, I'm sure you can come up with another to fit your meme.
C, ya.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Nice try on your point, but that "mind reading" crap gets old. You make a statement, and then someone infers meaning from that statement, and then you call that "mindreading."
Yet you infer meaning from others' statements, and not one person has accused you of "mindreading."
I think this "mindreading" thing is a copout, but that's just my opinion....
Have a great rest of the day
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your posts have become boring.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)If you are bored, find a more exciting thread.
No one is forcing you to hang around this one...
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)horses? That was the mode of transportation at the time.
I do believe I have a right to own a car even if I am not legally allowed to drive it on public property.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Already been down this road with others. Feel free to peruse the thread.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 ruled unconstitutional, or did Congress simply not restore it yet?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)All the AWB did was force importers and manufacturers to make slight cosmetic changes to their firearms to comply with the law. This was almost universally just the removal of the bayonet lug, which most shooters don't give a flip about having anyway.
It banned the manufacture and import of new high capacity magazines, but grandfathered in old ones and there is such an abundance of supply that while prices went up availability never was compromised.
So the AWB accomplished nothing.
But moreover, the Internet happened, and now information can be disseminated easily. And one piece of important information (FBI UCR) that is now widely disseminated is the fact that every year, only about 300 people are murdered using rifles of all kinds, let along assault rifles. This is about half as many as are killed by hands and feet.
So it's very very difficult to push for legislation that is 1) ineffective and 2) targeted at a crime committed only about 300 times a year when the law would affect millions of people.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or justify what you seem to see as an easy trade-off between hundreds of lives and thousands of very expensive and very infantile toys for moronic gun zealots.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Trust me, I follow firearm issues rigorously. I bought my first assault rifle during, and because of, the assault weapons ban.
I know exactly what the ban did and did not do. It is not the result of some "NRA talking points". You can read up on it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Prior to the AWB, you could buy an imported civilian AK-47. That is, it looked like a military AK-47, but it could only fire semi-automatically. It could have a threaded barrel, and it could have a bayonet lug. This is because these weapons were essentially military AK-47s with a different fire control group.
After the AWB, "assault weapons" were defined as:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
To comply with this law, importers and manufacturers simply machined off the threads on the end of the barrel, and machined off the bayonet lug. That's it.
To comply with import regulations, some imported assault rifles had a few foreign-made parts replaced with US-made parts.
Even if your NRA talking points were accurate, that wouldn't make it a right to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or justify what you seem to see as an easy trade-off between hundreds of lives and thousands of very expensive and very infantile toys for moronic gun zealots.
The founders of this country and authors of our Constitution disagree with you. They wanted the citizens to be armed with the weapons that would allow them to undertake military service. An assault rifle is exactly the right kind of weapon today to achieve that goal.
There are many things in life that we have to consider as trade-offs. We allow people to drive, even though thousands of people are killed in cars every year (far more than are killed by firearms). It's a trade-off we consider essential to our way of life. We allow people to own swimming pools, even though hundreds drown in them every year. We allow people to smoke and drink, even though millions of people die early deaths because of them every year.
The fact that we make these trade-offs does not negate the tragedy of those who die. But we make the trade-offs, nonetheless.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)may be legal only because of loopholes.
What were the annual sales of newly-manufactured military-style assault weapons in each year from before the AWB went into effect in the early 90s through the 2004 end of the ban to last year?
If the US government says something's legal, there may be a huge market. But if the government says something is NOT legal, only a few zealots and schizos will want to go anywhere near it.
Look at the clear sales figures rather than at the NRA talking points.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)What were the annual sales of newly-manufactured military-style assault weapons in each year from before the AWB went into effect in the early 90s through the 2004 end of the ban to last year?
If the US government says something's legal, there may be a huge market. But if the government says something is NOT legal, only a few zealots and schizos will want to go anywhere near it.
Look at the clear sales figures rather than at the NRA talking points.
I don't have actual data. But I can tell you that I personally purchased an assault rifle, and high-capacity magazines for it, specifically because of the AWB. I know many others who did also. Prior to the AWB, the AR15 had a relatively fringe following. Now it is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country. It is now so common that companies that traditionally steered away from military style arms, like Ruger and Remington, now both offer AR15 variant rifles (and M1911 pistols, for that matter).
The fact of the matter is, the AWB drove sales of assault rifles because people figured they better buy them while they still could.
Hell, just President Obama getting elected drove firearm and ammunition sales through the roof. You could not find normally stocked ammunition on Walmart shelves for years, and in fact they are usually still short.
No, the forbidden fruit is the most tempting. I bet if you look at the sales figures you will see that.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Is that the deep philosophical humanism of American gun-owners?
How many human lives is easy access to each ten thousand 100-round drum magazine worth, according to your beneficent reckoning?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The fact of the matter is, only about 300 people are murdered every year with all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, let along assault rifles equipped with $250+ 100-round drum magazines.
How many human lives is easy access to each ten thousand 100-round drum magazine worth, according to your beneficent reckoning?
As I've said many times, I'm not going to be punished for the crimes of others no matter how many crimes are committed. But that is beside the point. The point is, we make trade-offs every day between safety and freedom.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)A six-year-old's "safety" vs. gun-owners "freedom" to have their dangerous toys?
Higgs boson
(42 posts)That appellation seems to emanate from the same quarter as "penis substitute" and "spewer of death" do.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)I recognize that some, maybe even many, gunowners have been bullied in their pasts or even victimized by violent crimes, and I feel sorry for them. But IMO what most of them are doing now is holding onto their security blankets, trying to intimidate people they don't like, and generally letting the toybox get way out of control of their mental well-being and other people's very lives.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)You might find that inappropriate, and frankly, I don't give a damn.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)As Benjamin Franklin said back in 1775, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Our entire system of government, law, and order is a balance of freedom vs. safety.
Our founders thought it was essential that the people be the final repository of military force in this country, or at least that they be able to counter the military force of the federal government. Firearms were already hundreds of years old by the time of the writing of the Constitution, and no doubt had been used in countless crimes by then. The founders no doubt understood the risks in having an armed citizenry and that this meant that citizens could commit crimes with firearms.
But they looked at the balance of safety and freedom and choose freedom.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Hear, hear! It's about time someone started talking some sense on this issue.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Common sense tells you that any gun law short of confiscation would take fifty and probably a hundred years to show any true progress. Guns are a very durable product.
Banning ammunition could probably make a large difference in five to ten years.
So anybody that is honest will admit that the AWB was not truly given a chance. It was so poorly written that it had no real chance anyway.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It accomplished nothing because it was a COSMETIC LAW.
It did nothing to change the availability of AR15 or AK47 variant rifles, or any other kind of firearm.
All the manufacturers and importers did was to machine off the muzzle threads and the bayonet lugs. Things that had absolutely no effect on them being used in crime, which they hardly ever were or are.
All rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, are only used in about 300 homicides every year. THAT is why the law was allowed to expire. It wasn't worth the political cost in votes, which President Clinton acknowledged, to try and save 300 people a year.
So anybody that is honest will admit that the AWB was not truly given a chance. It was so poorly written that it had no real chance anyway.
Again, the AWB did not fail because it was not given a chance. It was because it was "so poorly written". It was so poorly written it did not limit the availability of anything.
And there is a reason for that. You can't ban a semi-automatic AK-47 without also banning grandpa's semi-automatic deer rifle. So they tried to ban the things that made it look scary, like pistol grips, or bayonet lugs, or threaded muzzles. And so the manufacturers complied with the cosmetic changes.
Just try and pass a law that bans grandpas semi-automatic deer rifle with a detachable magazine.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)See post #100 above.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Yes, the AWB drove firearm sales like crazy.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But that has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).
I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.113
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)We have the RIGHT to travel, as long as we follow the rules.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The AR 15 was available for manufacture and sale, but without certain features, like a bayonet lug, threaded barrel, etc. The basic weapon he had was not banned.
The mag would have been for manufacture, but all the ones made before 1994 were still in circulation. Might have cost him a little more.
obamanut2012
(26,181 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)self-appointed extreme reactionary USSC in the wildly ahistorical, precedent-overturning and partisan Heller and McDonald decisions, during just the past few years.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).
I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)future societies would face a different set of issues and left room for them to adjust the laws to the needs of the their times.
And that has been done as intended when needed several times.
The language of the Constitution often appears to be arbitrary but it appears that was deliberate as the FFs were smart enough to know they could not foresee every future issue.
It is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing the population but they had no concept of the kind of weapons today's population would need to prevent that from happening.
If we were to try to prevent what they feared when they wrote the Constitution today using the same method, then every citizen should have the right to own Nukes, eg.
Since that is not even something to consider, they left us with other options to achieve security against a takeover of the government.
So no, it is not what we are left with. We can use our intelligence to prevent what they intended to prevent by other means.
Edited to add, maybe we should focus more on their thoughts on 'standing armies' which always seems to be left out of the calculations of those who want to stick strictly to the Constitution as it applied more than 200 hundreds ago. Because clearly no matter how many guns people may own, there is no way they could ever be a match for the current weapons the government now owns and continues to add to with huge amounts of money every, single year.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)USSC decision. The "right" of which you speak did not exist before the Heller and McDonald decisions, and IMO will not stand future review by an impartial Court where outrageous legal fraud is in the minority.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Its still a fact.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)the Civil Rights Act, "Obamacare" and restore DOMA, Proposition 8, and DADT. Be careful what you wish for.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The Constitution does not make any distinctions for sub-categories of guns. But you knew that.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Where can I go pick one up?!?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Don't ya just hate it when ignorance comes back to bite ya?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Let's be honest here - the Constitution only specifies arms and nothing specific. I can't walk around, even if I have a concealed weapons permit, with a rocket launcher and you know it. Banning rocket launchers from use, which you can't legally use 'em like you can a semi-automatic, is not infringing on your rights, right? And yet, there is nothing in the Constitution that defines what exactly type of arms you can and cannot own. There is nothing about owning semi-automatics, rocket launchers, scud missiles and suitcase nukes and yet you could classify them as arms, no? The right to bear arms - it says it, so, why can't I use a loaded rocket launcher?!?
Because we make laws that dictate what type of arms are acceptable and what aren't. There is nothing unconstitutional about banning semi-automatics.
Gosh. Maybe if you weren't so quick to call me ignorant, you would have actually investigated the laws.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You have a nice day.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You never said anything about firing one, just buying one.
If you're gonna move the goalposts after I already kicked the ball, why play at all?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I think it's implied what I meant. But hey, if you want to go down that path, I'm all fine with people owning semi-automatics...let's just make it illegal to shoot 'em.
That cool? No goal posts moving. I think the intent was clear.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Its not the readers job to infer something that isn't there. The writer must make their point clear and concise.
In this case, you stated, and I quote:
Where can I go pick one up?!?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1000232
And I replied with a link of exactly where you CAN go and "pick one up" and "own" it.
Then you add, and I quote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1000564
Only to be followed up by (and was edited out), and I quote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1000612#edits
So to recap, you moved the goalposts from owning a rocket launcher, to using a loaded rocket launcher, and stopped at firing a rocket launcher.
You really should have just quit while you were behind.
And here ends the lesson.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)My point still stands and you're not even refuting it, which shows me you have nothing to stand on here. Instead of coming back and claiming I'm wrong or showing where I am wrong, you're trying to parse words. That's what people do when they've lost the argument and they don't have a comeback for what I laid out. It's not moving the goal posts - it's solidifying my point so that you can understand it better.
But you're not interested in debating. You're interested at stonewalling, which losers in a debate generally do. It's cool. I get it. You gotta do what you gotta do when the argument isn't going your way.
So, I'm done with you. You're obviously more obsessed with parsing my words instead of debating the actual point. Good luck!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(Shall not be infringed, not 'you have the right to')
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Which is exactly my point. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about your right to carry, and use, a semi-automatic. It can be claimed under the blanket definition of your right to 'bear arms', but the government has every right to dictate what is, and isn't, an acceptable form of bearing arms.
It's why I can't legally use a rocket launcher, even though, technically, it's considered an arm and doing so would signify my rights to bear it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Your suggested use does not fall under the courts current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That aside, yes you can. The permits and requirements to do so are very burdensome, but it isn't outright banned.
(Also, rocket launchers are usually, aside from being classified as ordnance, also classified as crew served weapons. In the days when the ink was drying on the ratification of the first 10 amendments, large crew served ordnance was almost exclusively owned by townships, and states, and held in armories, for use by individuals when the need arose.)
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I think we're in agreement. The government is free to interpret the law as they want. Arms, and weapons, aren't necessarily guaranteed as a right because the definition is vast. There are certain weapons that you can use and there are certain weapons you can't.
Let's be honest. If I had a shoulder-fired rocket launcher in my car, I would probably be arrested on the spot. That isn't infringing on one's right to bear arms, it's just having a sensible understanding of the overall law.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)even if you DID have the legal right to do so, and all your paperwork and permits lined up.
I do tend to agree, for instance, there's nothing in the constitution that says the states or federal government can prohibit a 17 year old from buying a rifle, or a 20 year old from obtaining a concealed pistol license. But they do.
Whether that makes it right or not, is a different question.
Clames
(2,038 posts)That isn't infringing on one's right to bear arms, it's just having a sensible understanding of the overall law.
If you can't fathom why RPG's and other destructive devices are specifically regulated and prohibited for ownership by the general public then you don't have a sensible understanding of the overall law. You don't have any understanding of the law in fact...
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)There was nothing unconstitutional about the federal assaults weapon ban in '94. It just expired. So, who's wrong? I'm certainly not. We've done it before and we can do it again.
Clames
(2,038 posts)I guess if a law was passed that banned abortion and it pass Constitutional muster you'd be ok with that too? Lackwits on both sides vote for bad laws and the AWB was one of them. Basically the very definition of ineffective legislation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The post is a germane response to the "Cars kill more people than guns! Maybe we should outlaw cars!", counterargument to gun control.
Maybe we should treat the "well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the free state", comparably to the "well regulated transportation infrastructure, necessary to the wellbeing of free citizens".
Evoman
(8,040 posts)And I'm Canadian, so it isn't even unpatriotic for me to say it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Maybe arguing thus post is a waste of time.
ananda
(28,895 posts)Cars may kill, may even be used as a weapon; but that is not what
people usually do with them, which is to use them to get from one
place to another.
The only thing a gun is designed to do is to kill.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I am merely addressing this because I have seen the gun psychos use this comparison, so I am comparing driving and gun ownership in my own fashion
yellerpup
(12,254 posts)Excellent, lucid rant and lesson.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Good to see you
How'd that dinner go the other night? I wish I could have had all that wonderful food you cooked up!
yellerpup
(12,254 posts)I did it for The Eagle Project, a start-up theatre company in Manhattan for mixed-bloods. We were raising money to produce "Wood Bones," a play by Wm. S. Yellowrobe, Jr. and from what I understand, the project is greenlighted now, so they must have hit their target. The American Indian Community House sent a gift of frybread as well, which with the venison stew, made an excellent Indin taco. Wish you could have been with us too. The food and entertainment were fantastic (if I do say so myself). LOL!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Glad it went well. I read that menu and just drooled....
A lot, lot of work but it all turned out very well. Maybe one of these days....
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Not a great analogy.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)on a day-to-day basis, the analogy is apt.
Can you imagine how many fatalities we would have if driving were completely unregulated?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)So which regulations do we put in place to prevent someone with psychological issues from getting a gun (given that our health care is in such a state that many of those people are not identified)? This guy likely would have passed a basic background check and he'd been planning for a while so a waiting period probably wouldn't have been an issue either.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)because his voicemail greeting was so bizarre, so apparently even a perfunctory exam would have caught him.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Batman-massacre-suspect-denied-gun-range-membership/tabid/417/articleID/262254/Default.aspx
Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes applied to join a Colorado gun range but never became a member after the owner became concerned over his "bizarre" message and behaviour.
Owner Glenn Rotkovich says Holmes emailed an application to join the Lead Valley Range in Byers on June 25 and there were no overt warning signs in that form.
Holmes said he was not a user of illegal drugs or a convicted felon, so Rotkovich followed up by calling Holmes' apartment to invite him to a mandatory orientation the following week.
Rotkovich got Holmes' answering machine and says "it was bizarre - guttural, freakish at best".
Rotkovich left two other messages but eventually told his staff to watch for Holmes at the July 1 orientation and not to accept him into the club.
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Batman-massacre-suspect-denied-gun-range-membership/tabid/417/articleID/262254/Default.aspx#ixzz21O3tLqtE
Higgs boson
(42 posts)(I guess we would have to make a few exceptions, somebody will have to deliver food to the prisons)...
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)In the early 70's automobile accidents killed over 54 thousand a year. Now it's down to under 32,000 despite a growing population and more miles driven. Regulations have made cars safer, highways safer, reduced drunk driving and increased seat belt usage.
A "Well Regulated" road system is a good idea. Firearms should also be "Well Regulated".
hughee99
(16,113 posts)but from discussions here (not this thread specifically), I can see that my idea of "well regulated" isn't always the same as others.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so, just like cars, gun laws seem to be working just fine.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)call them gun nuts.. then they can't resist in replying to this thread... wear them out.
Where in the Bible does it say you have the right to own a gun? (that will keep them busy...)
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)It's right there:
"Thou shalt honor the NRA by purchasing and worshipping thy 100-round magazine at all times and in all places."
Or something like that.....
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Guns are already regulated much like cars.
You do not need a license to drive a car on private property, only on public property.
You do not need insurance, tags, or registration to drive a car on private property, only on public property.
Guns are much the same way. If you want to use them on private property, in most states you don't need any paperwork. Only if you want to carry a concealed weapon in public or use public shooting ranges do you need paperwork.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)as we allow any type of firearm?
Do we require insurance if you take the gun off private property?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)In most states, there are regulations for vehicles used in public and there are regulations for firearms used in public.
Do we require insurance if you take the gun off private property?
No, because it's unnecessary. You can buy such insurance, but it is insanely cheap because it is hardly ever an issue for 99% of firearm owners (and probably 100% of people who buy such insurance). We bought a million dollar umbrella policy. They never even asked if we own firearms. It's just not a big insurance risk.
But all of this is beside by point, which is that guns are already regulated much like cars, in that when you use them on private property, there is little regulation. Only when you want to use them on public property are their regulations.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I do like the idea of mandating insurance for gun owners, though (or at least for CCW permit holders and those who carry openly in states where its legal...probably hunters, too...anyone taking the weapon of of private property). If premiums are based strictly on actuarial tables, they'll be low, since the vast majority of gun owners are at low risk for causing harm.
The people causing most of the problems with guns won't have it, of course, just like they ignore other laws. But people who drive uninsured are over-represented in car accidents, too... Car insurance is still a good idea, and I think gun insurance is, too.
As it happens, I already have a personal liability policy that would cover me. It would not, of course, pay if I was committing a crime at the time, but my auto policy's like that, too: if I hit someone fleeing the scene of a bank robbery, for example, it wouldn't pay!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Thanks for your posts in the thread.
We may not agree, but I enjoy the debate ( and it's times like these I REALLY miss being a talk show host so the debate here helps... )
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are simply ignorant of the reams of regulations already on the books.
For instance, try obtaining a rifle that is not black-powder, with a bore (caliber) greater than .50.
Try obtaining a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. Or a shotgun.
Try obtaining pistol ammo made from a single unitary metal, like Copper. (Well, the BATFE may have settled the issue with Talons... not sure. If they have, substitute Bronze.)
Now, when I say 'try', that's for rhetorical effect. Obviously, those things are banned, and asking around for them is going to raise eyebrows.
There are more firearm regulations at the federal level than you can imagine.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)or have any of these firearm regulations been declared so?
If not, then we can further regulate by requiring more extensive background checks, firearm registration for semi-automatics and denying the right to own 100 round drum magazines?
And that would be Constitutional?
Who knew!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Anything that amounts to an outright ban (and bans anything not in 'common use', esp by the military) has been ruled by the courts as off limits to the legislature.
For instance, un US vs. Miller, his short barreled shotgun was ruled not protected by the 2nd amendment by the supreme court. Problem is, Miller didn't defend himself, as he was dead at the time, and his council didn't raise the point that his shotgun WAS used by the military (called a trench gun) at the time.
So, at the time, it was ruled not protected BECAUSE it was not a military weapon of war.
So... depends.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and a lot of usage of weapons and this is not unconstitutional
I can't saw off my 12 gauge ( kinda wish I could and had one cop suggest I do so ) and I can't carry it loaded around town, though I am legal to carry it in plain view and unloaded in my state.
But why can they tell me I can't carry it in my car loaded? Isn't that infringing on my right to keep and bear arms? Why can't I legally load more than two cartridges when birdhunting?
And we can also register semi-autos without an outright ban - the same as we do vehicles.
Kennah
(14,352 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)and drive it on private property.
I don't need a license to own a gun and keep it in my house.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I get the point - but there are laws governing car ownership in many locales - even if you never take it off the property.
For example, many HOAs and city ordinances won't let you pile up junk cars in the yard. They regulate you even if you never take that vehicle off your own property.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No contract, no HOA. No regulations on cars on my private property. (Till I pile them high enough to be a flight path issue.)
City ordinances are fungible. Generally they apply only when your crapheap of cars begins to impact the property values of people around you. You could fill your house with cars, cut up into little pieces, or whole, and they can't do much through an ordinance.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)yes, the HOA isn't exactly the gubbmint, but a court of law would uphold the HOA's right to tell you to get those damn junkers out of the yard.
And a city ordinance is backed by law and an infringement on the right to have as messy a property as you want. Also, the city can tell you where you can and can't park that car.
For example, my parents are not allowed to park any vehicle on the grass in their county. Vehicles must be on a driveway or gravel bed or in the cul-de-sac, ( so that oil does not run into the groundwater freely I think ) whether or not anyone ever actually drives the cars off the property.
And the neighbors walked over and complained and threatened to turn them in for code violation before they got the gravel next to the garage for visitors!!
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)OK, tractors and harvesters may go a few miles, , but I don't think, automobile use on private property is really significant enough to consider.
In my state (Arizona), no permit is required to carry a concealed firearm. I rather hope that other states don't follow our example.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Oh, what fun we could have.
kellytore
(182 posts)then why can't we buy grenades or cannons, or even a radiation bomb? We have limitations on this right, so why not ban assault weapons, or anything else meant to destroy a group of people.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)We have to be sensible on this issue. I have no desire to take anyone's guns, and you would have to pry mine from my "cold dead hands" but I think we can restrict arms and ammo ownership for the good of all of us. I don't care how many guns anyone has, and I really don't care about mag capacity, but at this point, unless and until we provide adequate mental health care in this nation, something has to give.
Holmes' right to have a 100-round drum mag is now going to affect the inalienable rights of millions of people. They won't be able to go to the movies now without a search, without fear in many cases. His actions infringed on the right of the theater to make a profit off a movie, on the right of all the moviegoers that night to be safe in their persons.
The only folks protesting are those who believe they will someday face a Civil War, face zombies, or those who equate some restriction with a complete reversal of the RKBA.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I don't disagree with efforts to control the manufacture, importation, sale, and ownership of guns, but your constitutional analogy fails.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)to freely travel?
( the cite was a textbook opinion, yes, and posted as an argument for the right to drive. A few other decisions are cited above )
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)two different things.
I have a right to travel where I please in the US. I do not have a right to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without licensure by the state. And I have no 'right' to a license. I have a right to equal application of the rules when I apply for said license, though.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)So what you are saying is that, in modern times, you do not have the "right" to travel using the common mode of travel utilized in these times?
Forgetting that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights not specifically spelled out in the Constitution ( and I believe driving would be one of those rights ) what you are saying is that the Constitution only protects walking or horse and buggy or stagecoach or boat travel because that's all they had back then?
Hmmmmm....well then I would argue that means the 2nd Amendment should only cover owning bows and arrows, muskets, cannons and bayonets.
They didn't have AK-47s or Glock 9mm back then, so you have no right to own one under the Constitution.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You wrote:
Forgetting that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights not specifically spelled out in the Constitution ( and I believe driving would be one of those rights ) what you are saying is that the Constitution only protects walking or horse and buggy or stagecoach or boat travel because that's all they had back then?
No. Not at all.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)I believe driving in this day and age is a "right." A regulated right - but a right nonetheless.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)It's one of those things they tell you in High School driver education that everyone just accepts, but it really isn't true.
You have a right to use public roads. The government has a right to regulate that usage and can take awya that right if you violate those regulations.
You also have a right to vote, but again there are regulations on voting and the right can be lost if you are convicted of certain crimes.
I certainly find that my vehicle gives me WAY more freedom, than I could ever have from carrying a gun.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rights.
Driving on a public road is a privilege. It is not a right.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)But use paved roads, especially things like Interstate Highways is pretty much cars and trucks going places.
Google things like "Driving is a right" and catch up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)How about some case law to support your argument?
Can a state ban somebody from driving, obtaining a driver's license, or buying a motor vehicle without cause (ie DUI convictions)?
Give examples.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)assertion. Good Luck.
As for your question about banning someone from driving, no---a state cannot arbitrarily ban a person from driving.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)"a state cannot arbitrarily ban a person from driving"
But actually the assertion that was not a right was yours.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)There is no right to drive. If there was, you'd have been able to use google to cite me the case. You haven't.
There is a right to travel. This is not the same as a right to drive. Try reading Saenz v. Roe. The right to travel has three facets...the right to enter one state and leave another; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger; and for those who seek permanent residency, the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens. There's no right to drive.
There is also Equal Protection. Under Equal Protection, a state cannot ban a person from driving arbitrarily. This confers on you NOT A RIGHT TO DRIVE....but a right to have the rules, regulations, and laws regarding driving in your state fairly and equally applied.
Think about it this way...there's a right to travel, but a no-fly list. Ask yourself why.
My suggestion is that you read Gilmore v. Gonzales 435 F.3d 1125 for an excellent and concise discussion on why the state may burden modes of transportation without unduly impinging on the right to travel.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Excellent post
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)instead of the fear that drives their sale.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)As a privilege, the government grants a licence which can be revoked.
Gun ownership is a right. However that right is to maintain a militia in defense of the government, not to try to overthrow it.
Especially for something as petty as having your particular political party lose in an election.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)If my car ain't covered as "mode of travel" your SKS ain't covered as "arms."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)You can do that by train.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Wow.
Then I suppose that means we are only free to own muzzle-loaders, spears and cannons. Maybe a bayonet or two or three. And a bow and quiver of arrows - but only wooden bows - no fiberglass - with flint heads on them, none of this modern fancy shmancy metal stuff.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Really. I sure as hell wouldn't be on DU in a debate.
I'd be noodling on my lonely guitar or painting or something. And I might be eating something too. Haven't had a bite all day as I have no appetite. Haven't eaten since yesterday. I must force myself to eat. Sometimes B-12 helps, sometimes not.
Cannabis is illegal in my state. My avatar is a vow I made to keep it there until my country recognizes the legitimacy and legality of cannabis for medical purposes. I have no appetite because of my PTSD - it's one of the symptoms. I struggle to keep myself fed. I barely weigh 100 pounds.
But thanks for making fun of me anyway!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I can picture it now. Going from recipe to recipe saying nothing looks good.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Getting your jollies at someone's expense?
Why of course! I'd expect no less ... I'd wish the same on you, but I wouldn't wish this on anyone - even my enemies.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh wait,....that didn't come out right either....
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)And I just ate a bowl of cereal so I'm not so grouchy....
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's not Taco Tuesday yet.
You know, whenever I'm not hungry I try to get something that is really tasty. Then I'll take one bite and set it aside. Before long I'll want another. Then of course, there's devilled eggs. You would never even consider eating four or five eggs at once, but you can eat a plate of those without noticing.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)yeah, sometimes if I cook the smells will entice me to eat. But if I eat the wrong thing it shows up again if you know what I mean. Does me no good
I broke my little egg fridge so I hate to say I have thrown out a lot of my hens' eggs lately, but they are good. I may make some cheddar eggs and an english muffin in a bit.
Funny, but cannabis ALWAYS works. Exactly an hour after eating, I am ravenous as hell. If I have no cannabis, I spend most of the day nauseated unless I distract myself with long drawn out threads on DU or go outside and poke around in the garden. I can always eat good greens, but I haven't had any in a while and the nearest store to get them is 30 miles away. Do have some kale I just remembered in the garden, but it's too hot for much else lettucy to grow.
I am being legal these days because I can't afford a lawyer ( have lawyer friends but they don't do criminal court lol ) Can't wait til I move to a state where I can legally have it. I love where I live, but this state's governor and legislature will never have caring hearts when it comes to sick people.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Nor will they admit the main reason they object to weed is based on the temperance movement. A notion that "if it feels good" it's a sin and thus illegal under God's Law, thus illegal under the laws of man so man can impress God with the enforcement of His Laws.
Their God has a sword and they think they are that sword.
They are very popular with the low IQ crowd.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Haslam can't create jobs except in the prisons - he doesn't have the will to help any but the elite and he doesn't have any creativity in his entire being.
Our legislators all think they are their own Personal Jesus. They are like the Taliban in the laws they pass, but the truth is all of them love those For-Profit Prison donations. And the Beer Lobby donations, and the Big Pharma donations.
So we little people are just fucked. But we can carry our guns in church!!!!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The stated reason is to protect the public from evil as if weed is a temptation from the Devil.
Maybe that would be a way to mock them. Start asking them if they believe the devil is real. Get it on camera. Show them to be a bunch of superstitious idiots in front of the whole world.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)since cannabis is the number one cash crop here and it brings in a lot of revenue.
It came up for a vote recently and was struck down. But I'm not inhaling and holding my bref for this state to get any sense.
Soon I will be moving to a state where I can grow my own and TN can stay in the Dark Ages and continue to treat its citizens like mere chattel.
I actually have talked to a few in a club who swore they grow it large scale ( uncomfirmed, of course ) and who DO NOT WANT it to be legal because it would cut their profits. Pretty selfish fuckers, eh? Even when I suggested that they could become niche growers and still make a tidy sum, without the risk of incarceration or loss of their property they would rather a person like me suffer than have to do something legally.
I think though that what goes around comes around and one day these merciless souls will need some mercy, and know what it's like to be persecuted for nothing.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)At a place on the Mountain off old 41 ( which used to be the only route from Chicago to Miami )
Yeah, prohibition benefits the criminal and the prison industry more than it benefits society at large.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)People are running around in a brain altered state now.
The only problem is theirs is synthetic.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)and I have been saying for decades - that there should be insurance and tests, etc, just like one needs to get a driver's license.
This is only sensible. At a minimum!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Sensible is the keyword.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)As soon as you cite the specific types of "arms" covered by the 2nd amendment.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)try again.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Darn, you throw a little logic around and people fold like lawn chairs
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)mentioned in the Constitution I might give you some lateral leeway. as it is now? ho-hum and yawn. better luck next time
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Were muzzleloaders and bayonets specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? Anywhere?
No. They were not.
I think it's your fail, but I won't tell anyone else....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)no problem. glad to explain.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)and we can go back and forth all day.
Why, specifically did you ask for specific modes of transportation? Because then you can "prove" that auto travel is not specifically covered by the Constitution and therefore is not a right?
My answer is that ownership of semi-automatics is not specifically covered by the 2nd amendment and therefore is not a right.
You're promoting a double standard in the Constitution.
We can have it cover modern "rights" and ownership when it suits you? But not when it deflates your arguments?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)easily available to all via Medicare for All. You need to focus on teaching our young anger management, coping techniques, basic living skills, self worth, how to become positive contributing members of society. Inner City Youths need Summer Camps focusing on animal care teaching them responsibility for something other than themselves. Compassion and empathy. We need more mental health facilities and less prisons. we need to do away with the war on drugs. we need so much more than this hysteric, overwrought knee-jerk reaction. but, you go ahead. Have Fun. you have impressed some DUers. goody for you.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)You refuse to explain why my analogy is "silly" so you don't even engage - merely insult, and then you call foul? Jayzuss.
I agree with what you say about the many approaches to making gun violence less likely. However, I explained in the OP that I was addressing an argument made quite often yesterday comparing auto ownership to gun ownership.
I'm not here to impress anyone, Tuesday Afternoon. I have a boatload of friends in real life, thanks. I'm here for discussion. And if you don't like that I started a discussion based on what anti-gun control types used as an argument, all I can say is that you are free to leave this thread at any time. No one has forced you to read my 'hysteric, overwrought and knee-jerk" thread! Or have they? Do I need to get on somebody for forcing you here?
I just wish you would take a moment to explain where my logic is faulty, but you won't.
That's your choice.
kthnksbai
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)is not my fault.
One more time: Modes of Transportation are not a constitutional right. however, the right to keep and bear arms is. A well defined militia is settled law. whomever on here compared it yesterday also failed miserably.
Have a Nice Day.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)we can argue about what that means specifically.
Just as owning arms is a right and we can argue what that means specifically.
The 9th amendment reserves for us rights not specifucally enumerated in the Constitution, and I would argue my interpretation of that would include the right to drive, just as you are arguing that the 2nd amendment allows any and all types of weapons to be in private hands ( I assume that is what you are arguing - could be wrong.)
It's not "logic" but "interpretation" that is at odds here. And on that we can agree to disagree. But thanks for all the insults. They really added to the discussion!
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)You sell one, you tell the government who you sold it to. The government then issues a title to you which allows you to license it and operate it.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)You can have my cars when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Can you sell those cars at a Car show, and can the new owner then just claim ownership and drive them around without registering said car with the state?
They can park them behind the barn, sure, or drive them around the corn patch, but can they actually legally use those cars, even with their drivers license, if they don't get insurance, tag and clear title registering ownership with the state?
Higgs boson
(42 posts)on private property and the government neither needs to know about them nor can require them to have any paperwork whatsoever. They have old titles that have been committed to a shoebox and there isn't any paper trail to where they are or who has control of them. And as it happens, in my state, you can (although I can't imagine why anyone would) insure a car without any 'proof of ownership' or registration whatsoever...all you need is a VIN and some money.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I still had to record bills of sale. Both when I bought them and when I sold them.
If nothing else, it confirms you are not dealing in stolen property nor are the cops converging on you if the car is used as a getaway car in a bank robbery. Imagine what would happen if you sell a car to someone who goes into their local DMV because they'd like to actually use it and it turns up hot. Who are the cops going to go to first?
With guns it's the same deal, someone could have reported it stolen years ago. It would be nice if they could get their property back.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,052 posts)Higgs boson
(42 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)between Zanizibar and Tanzania. Ferries that aren't meant for ocean voyages and that are overcrowded keep sinking and killing hundreds of people.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2012/07/201272211273538149.html
The people are begging for regulation so that they don't keep losing loved ones. I think this is a similar situation to the car analogy that you brought up. Why gun owners are so stubborn about common sense regulations is beyond me.
I don't want to take anyone's guns from them or their right to hunt. I just want it to be harder for sociopaths and the mentally unstable to be able to get them. If gang members or other criminals get them on the black market, so what. It makes it easier for the cops to put them away when they are caught possessing illegal firearms and ammo. Our system doesn't prevent a crime from happening but makes sure it has to happen before law enforcement can step in.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Just like the First Amendment. Jayzuss how many regulations have they put on that lately with "Free Speech Zones" and such
Look at how OWS was treated by law enforcement.
If we treated the gun psychos the same way cops all over this country have treated protesters exercising their first amendment rights, the gun psychos might actually have something to complain about.
As it is, merely wanting databases or some restriction drives them completely off the edge.
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)If guns were regulated like cars I would be able to take my handgun to a dealer in another state, sell it, buy another handgun that day and take it back to my home state.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)the people to keep and drive automobiles, shall not be infringed."
I'm sure I read that somewhere...
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)doesn't negate the need to review existing regs to keep weapons out of the hands of mass killers
Higgs boson
(42 posts)And how do we determine which gun owners are psychos and which ones are just regular Democrats?
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)pansies
commies
blah blah blah
There are all sorts of names for people who want more regulation of firearms.
I consider a gun Psycho one who loves their firearms more than they love their nation or their community or their family.
It's certainly their RIGHT to be a gun psycho, and it's also my right to call them that.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)Thank you.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)but I would just argue that those in favor of gun control are reasonable people concerned with society as a whole - which is not psychopathic, whereas those who have a no-holds-barred approach to gun and ammo ownership and sale are only concerned with THEMSELVES and couldn't care less about society at large, which would qualify as exhibiting psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies.
I think we can all work together, but the gun psychos don't want to work on this at all. "Give Up! Bwa-ha-ha- ha!" they say.
Just my opinion.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)object to is the instantaneous knee-jerk reaction to the rare actions of one kook to call for draconian
restrictions on, and even outright appeals to ban guns from law-abiding citizens. Sure you can make the claim that a criminal is not a criminal until he breaks the law, but that's true concerning EVERY law. Every person putatively has the capacity or at least the physical ability to strangle his spouse, neighbor or child, we don't routinely incarcerate people for what they -might- do. Who would be left on the outside to feed the prisoners?
I wouldn't be sad if someone could roll back time and "uninvent" guns, but that's obviously impossible and would still leave a lot of potential weapons...including the jawbone of an ass. nu?
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Drinking and driving is not "intent to do harm" and we have a right to drink and purchase alcohol, but we most assuredly DO NOT have a right to drink and drive.
Why?
Because we MIGHT do harm. We are regulating behavior BEFORE there is tragedy.
A 100-round magazine such as Holmes used HAS NOW DONE grievous harm. Should we not have the right to restrict or register such magazines, knowing now that they can take such a toll on life?
Why are gun psychos so vehemently against any restrictions? What if alcoholics claimed they have the right to drink and drive as long as no one is hurt? Would their argument fly with you?
It's not "knee-jerk" to want to try to limit violence in society, nor is it "knee-jerk" to have discussions on how we might best accomplish this.
Yet even bring up banning or restricting certain semi-autos or high capacity round magazines and you may as well have said you were destroying the entire 2nd Amendment! THAT is knee-jerk, my friend - as frickin knee-jerk as you can get
Higgs boson
(42 posts)they MIGHT abuse it. That is the stuff of Saudi Arabia law, and is pretty much one hundred percent anathema to Americans.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)We do prohibit underage sale of alcohol. Why? Why can't a 20-year-old have a beer legally in America as in every country in Europe?
Now, that is infringing on someone's right to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in a very big way.
My point being, we outlaw some behavior because it has the "potential" to do harm. We outlaw selling raw milk. I can't sell my hen's eggs legally in my state unless I wash them with bleach. I can't slaughter my chickens and sell them unless it is done in a USDA approved facility.
I can't open a restaurant and sell tacos unless I have a license and inspection and meet many criteria such as having two bathrooms and certain type walls and dish sinks.
I can't buy medicinal cannabis ( at least not in my state ) and the Feds don't want me buying it in ANY state. Why?
I can't register or drive a car in Atlanta ( if I lived there ) if it doesn't meet emissions standards.
There is plenty of regulation to go around which is intended to prevent harm, and which we accept as a condition of living in society with others.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)particular one. I think there's a name for that..................
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)It would be nice to do whatever we want whenever we want but part of the price we pay to live in society is accepting restrictions on our behaviors.
Now, most of these laws are to protect the public, some are to protect others' greed, but we have to obey them. We should try to change the ones which are unfair, but we should also acknowledge that we may need to fashion new restrictions if the need arises.
When my first kids were infants, you could throw them in the floorboard and ride around if you wanted to.
Why are kids now in car seats?
Is that a goood or a bad restriction on the use of my vehicle while toting younguns?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And more regulations over explosives. Joker wanna be boy apparently got all his explosives legally.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)regardless of its impact on Constitutional rights, as in "the end justifies the means"?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If a gun / ammo store thinks the guy is creepy he should get an incentive for reporting the person.
BTW I am also an owner of guns.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)But I do like your 'creepy' idea. That will play well with stores who think black teenagers with hoodies are creepy or shoppers who are a little too "friendly" with their same-gender accomplice...they would LOVE to have your idea incorporated into legal legitimacy and a reason to "report" them.
Nice going there.
Describe your guns. I think you are fibbing to us.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)just for stating his opinion, and how would a list of guns convince you anyway? I've been to the Gungeon and was not believed when I said I was a gun owner. If you're for any restriction at all, you can't possibly be a gun owner, goes the logic down there.
As for the creepy aspect, any bar owner or party host can - and should - refuse to sell or serve alcohol to a very intoxicated individual. And then they should call cops and have the guy picked up if they see him get in his car and attempt to drive. Does that infringe on the sot's rights? Sure, but with good cause. The bar owner or party host can be held liable if the sot kills somebody.
And an arms seller should also be able to refuse to sell to someone and I believe should be held responsible if they do sell to someone who commits a crime with that weapon.
Just as I would be personally liable if I have a party and let a guest leave three sheets to the wind and then he kills somebody while driving, the online retailer who sold Holmes the ammo and explosives should be held liable for the actions of the person to whom they irresponsibly sold weapons and ammo.
I'll guarantee the arms dealers would be policing themselves, and doing more extensive checks on customers if they were all held liable for the crimes committed by those to whom they sell. We wouldn't need restrictions then.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)I am so sick of the comparison between guns and cars that gunners give.
Touche for your comment... I will use this rebuttal from now on!
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)It just galled me when they kept bringing it up so my smart as just HAD to make an OP about it.
PLease feel free to use the arguments here as you wish!
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)My drivers licence is good in ALL 50 states, without question. And since I can take my car to all 50 states, I can take my gun as well, without question....
I also own some very fast cars, so i can own fast guns too, ahhh a sub machine gun would be nice...
I can own all i want, and if i don't put them on the public road, I don't need to licence them...
I can commit all kinds of crimes, as long as they are not "car related" and still be able to own and possess them....Again without question...
Not to mention, the mere fact that Vehicular laws, are ONLY enforced AFTER they are broken, so you could drive 100 mph with your kid strapped to the top....Unlike many states gun laws, where a phone call, and a "hunch" is enough to rob you of your civil liberties.
I am not required to pass a background check to buy a car...
When I hand over the money, I take the car RIGHT THEN, their are NO waiting periods, or cooling off periods..
Their are NO pre-conditions to car ownership, only on "use on a public road" I, as a 10 year old, used to drive old cars around fields ALL THE TIME, ...perfectly legal...
Please think about your analogy before you post them.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Some of your arguments have already been addressed
You can have fast cars but you're not supposed to drive them fast outside a racetrack or your own property. You may put others at risk. You can go into the military and fire submachine guns if you want, but you can own as a civilian a semi-auto that is pretty damn fast.
Nowdays, they are pulling people's licenses for not paying child support and for other infractions from what I understand, and yes, you are correct that you can still drive even with felony convictions, but the OP was not about making all the restrictions equal between the two; it was pointing out that we DO restrict and regulate driving, so it's ridiculous to say "Well, git rid o' cars then, cuz they kill people, too!"
Don't get the 'after the fact shit.' Splain that one a little better on the phone call and the "hunch" business. Have never known of any case where someone's guns were taken away on a phone call or a "hunch."
They most certainly will check their database when you apply for a license, to see if you have any prior moving violations, license suspensions, etc. They most certainly do make you take a vision test, a written test and a driving test before they issue your first license and many times later in life if circumstances warrant. I've never taken any such test to purchase a firearm or ammo.
There are restrictions on young drivers; as for adults, no there is no waiting period once you show competence, but you are expected to carry insurance so that if you fuck up your victims are paid. There is no such requirement on gun possession.
My kids used to drive my Suburban on my farm. So what? So did a lot of kids. But your city, county, etc. can put restrictions on even non-operating vehicles on yur property as stated up thread.
PLease Read an entire thread before posting your arguments.
Daninmo
(119 posts)If Guns were Treated Like Cars
(C) 2000 Ron Miller
1. You could get a simple license from the State for a nominal fee and only
have to take a test that any idiot could pass. You'd only have to renew it
every 10 years for 40 years and maybe retake the test if you move out of state.
2. You could kill and injure people with your gun while drunk and still have
your lawyer get your gun back because you need it for work.
3. You'd have half the tax burden of the county and State dedicated to
improving the shooting ranges and facilities. The public agrees this is never
good enough to suit them and with all the gunowners from California moving in,
the range capacity will never catch up. Lines at the range are always shown on
TV with the newsies deploring the crowding.
4. You could carry in any State at any time because carry and possession of
your gun is honored nationwide and is considered a basic American civil right.
5. You would see commercials on TV pushing the newest, latest guns which you
could lease for just $25 per month subject to the fine print.
6. You could finance a fancier gun than you can really afford by taking a 5
year loan with approved credit.
7. You would have a gun safe built into every house. In the upscale houses you
would have 3 gun safes. Inexpensive houses and mobile homes would just have a
gunrack by the door.
8. You'd have gun storage lockers at the shopping mall in which to store your
rifle while shopping. This in order to free your arms for packages. The
convenience of the shopper is paramount.
9. You could buy ammunition at the 7-11. Full-service station means they'll
reload your magazines for you.
10 The news would stop reporting gun accidents unless more than 10 children
were killed at one time. Onesy-twosey would only be notable in small towns or
if Princess Di's bodyguard shot her while aiming at paparazzi.
11 If the price of ammunition rose 20% the Federal Government would release war
reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer's comfort level.
Ammo would carry a 50% tax to finance public shooting ranges. The Teapot Dome
scandal would have been about a lead mine.
12 We'd teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.
13 Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the
family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high capacity semi-auto
pistol on their 16th birthday and endanger everyone when they learn to use it
in public.
14 High schools would have large gun lockers to store student's arms while they
attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to
discourage teen-age gun carrying to school.
15 Schools would have shooter's education classes to make sure the kids could
pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish
would throw up.
16 Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public
because to disarm them would be to damage their self-esteem. Families would
wring their hands over holes in the walls and ceiling. Occasionally an oldster
would fire into a schoolyard when they mistake the trigger for the safety.
Legislators would refrain from criticizing because of the AARP's influence.
17 Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can't
afford their own guns.
18 There would be such a thing as "public weapons" for the masses.
19 Congress would be subsidizing weapons for people too limited in means to
afford their own.
20 Congress would be willing to float a loan to Colt's in order to ensure the
survival of an American company against unfair foreign competition. (Think
"Chrysler"
21 We, except for Ralph Nader, would dismiss 40,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries
per year as "the price of freedom."
22 You would have MADS. Mothers Against Drunk Shooters (instead of HCI). MADS
would conduct a campaign of public education instead of trying to use the force
of government to prohibit irresponsible drinking and shooting.
23 You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit
card.
24 removed.
25 You'd have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on
cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.
26 removed
27 You'd have businesses like "Jiffy Gun-Clean" to make life convenient. But
you'd always worry that they might not have gotten the magazine fully seated
afterwards.
28 You'd have "Classic Gun Events" with parades on public roads as everyone
with such a classic carries it for all the public to see.
29 You'd have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at
"Gun Junk Yards". They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and
pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want
to replace.
30 There would be a booming business and debate about substituting non-OEM
parts in the gun repair business.
31 You'd have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out
"unscrupulous gun smiths." This story would be "old reliable" and works every
year.
32 The Japanese would be trying, and succeeding, at taking over the market for
efficient, reliable high-quality guns. The Koreans would be trying to sneak in
at the low end of the market. The Germans would be selling premium brands based
on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would
require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down
and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates. The Italians would paint
their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky. The
State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built
guns into their country. The Japanese would resist the US by saying that
Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese
manufacturers can meet.
33 You'd have an entire section of the Saturday Coloradoan devoted to ads for
new and used guns.
34 You'd have a pair of fun-loving gunsmiths on Public Radio doing a show on
gun problems. They'd be named "Tap & Rack"
35 There would have been a terrible TV show back in the black & white days
named "My Mother - The Gun". It starred Jerry Van Dyke and ran just one season.
36 Dean Jones would have made a series of stupid movies starring Herbie the
Love-Gun. Herbie was an adorable anthropomorphized cheap German Saturday Night
Special. Dean Jones would never show his face in public again after these
movies.
37 Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500
would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance
contests, and off-range marksmanship events. NASGUN would create big heroes in
the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.
38 High-schools would paint up a gun in the colors of the opposition and charge
$.25 for you to swing a sledge hammer at that gun during pep rallys.
39 John Elway would own half the gunstores in the Denver Metro area.
40 Wellington Webb's wife would be carrying the finest English Double shotgun
money can buy while Wellington has body guards to carry his semi-auto pistols
41 Back in the 1970's during the ammo crisis, Congress would have set a maximum
cyclic rate for autos and semi autos in order to conserve ammo.
42 After Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the national cyclic rate was raised to
something all semi-autos can be comfortable with.
43 The Coloradoan would be publishing the locations of range repair work every
week to be sure no one would be inconvenienced.
44 The Beach Boys would have released some songs about guns: "Spring little
Cobray gettin' ready to strike..... Spring little Cobray with all your
might....." "She's real fine my Wonder Nine, she's real fine my Won-der Nine."
"Fun, fun, fun 'til Daddy takes her Kel-Tec away......"
45 Letters to editors would be written decrying that all those Soccer Moms are
lugging .50 cal machine guns around town, wasting ammo and getting in
everybody's way.
46 Letters to editors would be written responding that putting one's beginning
driver son or daughter behind a .50 cal would mean that the writer's offspring
would survive any conflict with lesser armed individuals.
47 removed.
48 Cities would be experimenting with electric guns but would be surprised to
find that people would step in front of them at the range because they were too
quiet so no one knew the electric gun was there.
49 removed.
50 The National Rifle Association would be reduced to selling travel insurance
for your guns because the rest of society will have seen to it that there would
be no chance that firearms would ever be banned.
Copyright 2000 by Ron Miller. (unimogbert@ CONNECT PARTS TO E-MAIL pobox.com)
Permission is granted for reproduction of this article provided that:
A. Copyright notice and this list of provisions is included. Copyright notice
to be placed prominently at the head of the article. The list of provisions
may be moved to the end of the article if appropriate for presentation style.
B. If excerpts are made of the 50 listed items a minimum of 15
items are required to be reproduced in order to preserve the satirical
tone of the original. If additional items are thought of, as I'm sure they
will be, please delineate the additional contributions from the original.
C. No monies are paid to anyone delivering this work for publication
by any means. (The author didn't get paid to write it, therefore you
shouldn't get paid for copying it.)
D. Transmission to pro-gun organizations and gun owners is encouraged.
E. Reformatting to use HTML and other presentation improvements is, of course,
welcome.
F. Use by anti-gun organizations will be scrutinized , and if any copyright
infringement is found, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
After all, laws are for everybody
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Don't care to tackle those point by point, but none of the above ( in your post ) is unconstitutional is it? You accept the above as part and parcel of owning a firearm, do you not? Then you are accepting restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms!
Not to mention that a car is not really designed to kill people, is it?
A gun IS designed to kill, even if you use it for target practice only; someone else can steal it and handily kill with it.
So you basically agree with my premise: comparing cars to guns is dumb. And that was the point I was making.
But thanks for the amusing post.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)at the Sporting Goods retailer.
So that's only true for certain guns, but you already know that.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)Kennah
(14,352 posts)... then any 25 year old with a credit card could walk into almost any major airport, rent a gun, and walk out without any criminal background check.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Take a 205 hp Mustang and turn it into a 2,000 hp rocket as long as you had the budget. And not only would you be able to buy virtually all the parts online but the UPS or FedEx guy could drop it ALL off at your door. You could even arrange for your neighbor to sign for the packages if you weren't available.
patrice
(47,992 posts)can't figure out what it is that people are doing that they fear government will come after them for. Is it expected that all of us will turn into Waco compounds? How is that supposed to happen? Some police do bad things. Shouldn't we be dealing with that legally and directly, rather than jonesing Waco-like situations?
Personally, I think DU is full of agitprop right now. Lots of new users, some perhaps somewhat naive, others the opposite of naive taking advantage of this stage.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Where, without doing anything wrong, drivers are pulled over, scrutinized, sometimes searched, and made to perform demeaning roadside tests.
Daninmo
(119 posts)driving is a privilage, the 2nd ammendment is an individual right defined by the SCOTUS.