Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem is not the prudent gun owners, it is the imprudent gun owners.

So why trample over the rights of the prudent and lawful?

It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.

So the STATE governments brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.

However road accidents were reduced.

You'll note driver licensing is not a federal issue. You'll also be willing to admit that nothing in the bill of rights is in question when it comes to licensing a driver who wants to use public roads.

Of course, you know these things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.

So the government brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.

However road accidents were reduced.

So are we allowed to compare firearms to cars or not? Because it seems that there is some upset whenever pro-2nd Amendment people make such a comparison

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem is not the prudent gun owners, it is the imprudent gun owners.

And most responsible gun owners think those people need to be held accountable by law for their negligence. Kid kills himself with a gun you left unsecured? You just lost your kid AND you're going to prison for criminally negligent homicide.

There are laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, too. We just don't enforce them very well.

Believe me, as a responsible gun owner I want nothing more than the morons that make the rest of us look bad to be held accountable for their actions.

@wombat - not seeing the problem with that ad.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also argue that the problem with those "imprudent drivers" is the same for gun ownership: we don't enforce well enough the laws we have on the books. And the penalties aren't nearly severe enough.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a bit like before you needed a driver's licence to drive a car. Prudent people got themselves trained how to drive safely, and had fewer crashes, but imprudent people didn't bother -- they drove too fast and drunkenly, and had more crashes.

So the government brought in a scheme to make sure drivers were trained to an acceptable standard, and also made up a number of road laws limiting speed, drinking, and so on. Thus trampling all over the rights of the prudent, who now had to pay for licensing and road signs the same as the imprudent.

However road accidents were reduced.

So are we allowed to compare firearms to cars or not? Because it seems that there is some upset whenever pro-2nd Amendment people make such a comparison

Well, I am comparing safety legislation here, not cars and guns specifically. I could as well have used planes and guns, drugs and guns, or civil engineering projects and guns.

I mean, do you get the basic point that sometimes the innocent have to be inconvenienced in order that a greater good may be promoted?

The Bill of Rights disagrees.

Let's not go round that circle again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's not go round that circle again.

Then why do you keep bringing it up then?

Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.

The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.

We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.

"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.

How dare you suggest the Bill of Rights isn't some super human vision in a cape with super powers that will punch out uncle sam if he so much as tries to step on someone's lawn.

For shame D-USA. Constitution Man is disappoint.

 d-usa wrote:
Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.

The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.

We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.

"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.

I'll note the Bill of Rights was ratified with the main document, and does not have changes to the main document but instead adds to it, further putting explicit limits on Federal power, unlike some ammendments which do change the main document.

AI'll also note, folks opposed to the 2nd never attempt to go about repealing it in the way the constitutions allows.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.

The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.

We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.

"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.

I'll note the Bill of Rights was ratified with the main document, and does not have changes to the main document but instead adds to it, further putting explicit limits on Federal power, unlike some ammendments which do change the main document.

But if the Bill of Rights is an extension of the main document, then it can still be changed just as the main document has been changed. At some point enough people agreed that the 2nd was needed, at some point one more SCOTUS judge than the opposition agreed that it doesn't just applies to militias, and at some point enough people can agree to get rid of it.

AI'll also note, folks opposed to the 2nd never attempt to go about repealing it in the way the constitutions allows.

I don't think that the majority of "2nd Amendment Opponents" are actually against the second, they just think that what they want doesn't violate the second. They think that more regulations doesn't mean that you can't have guns, so there is no violation.

Just thinking that there is nothing there to legally stop the following from happening at some point:

Anti-gun: We want reform.
Pro-gun: Nope, 2nd.
Anti-gun: What about this reform.
Pro- gun: Nope, 2nd.
Anti-gun: This one?
Pro-gun: Nope, 2nd.
Anti-gun: Screw it, let's get rid of the 2nd.
Pro-gun: Feth...

Do I think that getting rid of the 2nd is something that should happen? Narp.
Do I think that there are near enough numbers to even make it a realistic thread at this point? Narp.
But can the 2nd be thrown in the trash if enough people want to do it? Yarp.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's not go round that circle again.

Then why do you keep bringing it up then?

Frazzled did, not me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point was to explain the kind of circumstances in which a "prudent" group may have to be imposed upon in order that an "imprudent" group can be got to behave in a less irresponsible way.

 d-usa wrote:
Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.

The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.

We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.

"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.

Nothing in the Constitution is "a law." The Second was a change, just like the First. Thank God for the Bill of Rights.

I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.

 d-usa wrote:
Everything in the constitution, including the document as a whole, can be changed if we want it to be changed.

The 2nd is just a law, nothing more and nothing less. Hiding behind "the constitution says so" is just a way of actually avoiding talking about stuff that we don't want to address.

We like having the freedoms in the constitution, and for the most part it has served us well. But the 2nd was a change to the original document, and there is nothing preventing us from changing it again.

"We can never pass a certain law because of the 2nd" is wrong because we can always get rid of the 2nd to begin with.

True... but, the only way that happens is if enough states initiate the Constitutional Convention via Article V and if enough states ratify it.

It ain't going to happen from Congress.

So... like it or not, it's here to stay.

If only the anti-2nd amendment crowd would spend their efforts in education and training on proper guns safety...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's not go round that circle again.

Then why do you keep bringing it up then?

Frazzled did, not me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point was to explain the kind of circumstances in which a "prudent" group may have to be imposed upon in order that an "imprudent" group can be got to behave in a less irresponsible way.

You did actually. The needs of them many vs. the needs of the one only works for dictatorships and coffee houses. The Bill of Rights was put in place STRICTLY TO PROTECT THE NEEDS OF THE ONE.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.

Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.

Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.

Really?

I guess I should expand upon that.

I disagree. I think any instance where were attempting to limit the rights of the many to adhere to the (in this case deviancy) of the few it isn't a good thing. In this particular instance, where there is literally no substantiation that it would further protect the many, is even more egregious.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think a lot of people have a big problem with the notion that we should infringe upon the rights of the law abiding to further control the non law abiding.

Nobody has a problem with that notion, we do it every single day and people are okay with that.

Really?

If you have never realized that, then the rights must not be that important to you to begin with...

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Well, I am comparing safety legislation here, not cars and guns specifically. I could as well have used planes and guns, drugs and guns, or civil engineering projects and guns.

I mean, do you get the basic point that sometimes the innocent have to be inconvenienced in order that a greater good may be promoted?

That sounds like Communist propaganda to me.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That sounds like Communist propaganda to me.

Really? Using reference to communism in a reductio ad hitlerium manner, on a topic about gun control ?
I definitely need to make some U.S. cliché blingo for Dakka's Off-Topic. Would be real fun.

5th/6th off topic post deleted.

Reds8n

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That sounds like Communist propaganda to me.

Really? Using reference to communism in a reductio ad hitlerium manner, on a topic about gun control ?
I definitely need to make some U.S. cliché blingo for Dakka's Off-Topic. Would be real fun.

"The Greater Good" is not an American concept. Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights. Nowhere in there does it say that it's OK to break a few eggs as long as you make a good omelette.

off topic spam deleted.
Again.

Reds8n

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
"The Greater Good" is not an American concept.

No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.

Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
"The Greater Good" is not an American concept.

No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.

Thats because Europe is full of Socialists and countries that don't spend enough on defense because Daddy USA has their back, but then put down America.

So, uh, is that supposed to be taken literally, or as satire ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.

Our motto, signed into law by Ike, is In God We Trust.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
"The Greater Good" is not an American concept.

No, it is not. Using communist or socialist as an insult, or a way to automatically discredit something, though, is still very characteristic of U.S. A. You will not see it happen in many European countries, and I think it would be the same for most non-European countries too.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Though they have not always been afforded by our government, freedom and equality are amongst the rights guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.

Yeah, so ? Do you know what the French Constitution says ? Or the founding legal documents of other countries ? Do you believe that having that in your Bill of Rights makes you special, or different, or something ?
Hell, even your national motto includes those two notions, along with brotherhood. That must be the most common, consensual thing you can find.

I think you a missing something here: I don't care what you do in France. I don't care what your constitution says, and I don't care about your willing embrace of a flawed ideology. For almost a decade now, Muslim terrorists have been rioting and destroying your country and nobody is willing or able to lift a finger to stop them. Sorry to say, but France isn't exactly on my list of high council for self-preservation. As for "spreading the wealth" your taxes are absolutely through the roof. What intelligent hard-working person would want the United States to be ANYTHING like France? That was a rhetorical question obviously, because the answer is "nobody."

As for your second point, you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

Our "national motto" changed in 1956 specifically to differentiate us from Communists.





ETA: 'Merica.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I think you a missing something here: I don't care what you do in France.

Not just France, buddy. Obviously, you do not care about what anyone else does. Which is not giving you a good reputation.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
For almost a decade now, Muslim terrorists have been rioting and destroying your country and nobody is willing or able to lift a finger to stop them.

That is rich, coming from the U.S.
Remember the twin towers ? Because we sure did not loose the Eiffel tower, or any other significant building, to Muslim terrorists . But I guess you would know better if you cared about France. Since you do not, you can only spill uneducated bs .