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.
2013/05/10 21:01:49
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
dæl wrote: I wouldn't want to live in fear as some of you guys do, seems exhausting.
By that logic, we all live in fear. We have sprinkler systems in our buildings in case of fire, we have seatbelts in our cars in case of collision. Having a useful mechanism around to prevent potential harm isn't living in fear of that harm, it's dealing with the possibility that it may occur.
Constantly referring to violent situations which have little chance of actually happening seems paranoid is all. If the best reasoning you have for something is that it might prove useful in an astronomically unlikely situation, then perhaps it's not that good a reason.
Not going to get into the rest of this but I'm just going to point out why I (and I'm guessing the people you're debating with) disagree with this sentiment of "the odds are so small it'll almost never happen".
If there's a lightning storm outside, you wouldn't walk into the middle of a field holding a metal pole. The odds are astronomically small that you'll get hit, but yet people still get hit by lightning every year (even without holding metal objects in the air).
If there's sharks in the water, you wouldn't go swim. Yet the odds of being attacked by a shark are even less than being hit by lightning (roughly 30 to 80 people in the US get attacked every year)
If there's only a 1 in a million chance you'll be raped, that's still a 1 in a million chance. It can happen, and it does. (made up statistic, the actual odds are much higher, I just can't find an unbiased site to reference at the moment)
Repeat ad infinitum. It's like carrying a first aid kit, a survival blanket, some road flares, and a small survival kit in your car. Will you ever need them? Probably not, but I would much rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Call me paranoid all you want, but I'm an Eagle Scout, our motto is "be prepared" for a reason. Just because I have a 1 in 5 million chance of crashing out in the woods and being stuck overnight, doesn't mean I'll just say "oh, that'll never happen to me." Because guess what, that guy who was unlucky enough to be the 1 in 5 million said the same thing before he slid off the road. These things still happen, however unlikely they may be. How's that saying go, "When it'll only happen to somebody else, remember that you're everybody else's 'somebody else' ". I can't remember the exact wording, but hopefully you get the jist.
So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
And while I hate to sound like a crazy person, I don't expect cops to protect me, but not for the reason you might think. Many cops are good people, and do their best to protect us, but they're not psychic, and they haven't developed teleporters as far as I know. If you were in an instance where you truly needed a cop to protect you, how could they do anything? You really think that guy with the knife is going to let you call 911 and wait patiently for 10 minutes so the cops can show up? Who's going to call the cops for you if the guy catches you in a back alley by yourself? These are highly unlikely to happen, yet they happen every day across America and other countries. Unless you get really lucky and a cop just happened to drive by, you would be at the mercy of your attacker. Having the best police force in the world doesn't do a me a bit of good if they only show up after I got stabbed in the gut by some crackhead. Cops aren't our personal bodyguards, following us around every second of every day to keep us safe. They have tremendous workloads, and can never be everywhere at once.
So instead of saying "oh, it'll happen to someone else", or "oh, I hope the cops will be there in time to help me" I do what makes sense to me. I make sure I'm prepared. I have a way to protect myself so I can stay alive until the cops can show up, and then I let them take over from there because that's their job. I view the gun as a tool, no different than the spare tire and jack I keep in my car in case I got a flat, or the fire extinguisher I keep in the closet, because no matter how small, there's a chance I may need that someday. I keep it around at all times, and I hope I never have to use it. I don't go out every day and think "oh boy, maybe I'll get carjacked today and finally get to off someone." just like I don't think "gee, I sure hope I slide off the road in the middle of nowhere and have to survive on my own for a week."
So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods
.
EPIC post dude!
Exalted.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/10 23:22:25
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yup, and there are less cars per person than there are guns per person.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MrMoustaffa wrote: So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
Situations such as these are not that rare, I've been in a few myself, but have never felt the need for a weapon. That would be an unnecessary escalation and could make the situation worse. When I said I feel safe, it's not from living in a nice area, it's from knowing that random attacks rarely happen, and that even when they do the worst you have to worry about over here is that someone might get a bit of a kicking.
So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods[/spoiler].
It is a really well reasoned post you made here and makes a certain amount of sense, my main issue is that the prevalence of firearms in your society has not made it safer for people, but quite the opposite. Rather than reducing those risks they have made violent situations not only more likely, but also more violent
I do have one question for people regarding self defence, if a new invention came about, which worked exactly as a gun did but was non lethal (when shot a target is incapacitated for say 30 mins), would you be ok with such an invention taking the place of firearms for self defence?
You've compared homicides by weapon to overall deaths by car. For a true comparison you should compare like for like, when you do its pretty close in total.
2010 gun deaths = 31,672
2010 car deaths = 32,885
2013/05/11 00:11:00
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies.
Because unlike guns, a car isn't designed specifically to kill people in the most efficient manner possible.
Which is exactly why I want to own guns (self defense) in the first place, but come on, be honest about what a gun is. It's a tool for killing things. Nothing more. That's why guns are so heavily regulated. And yet in many ways, cars are more regulated than guns are.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/05/11 00:25:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/05/11 00:22:10
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Grey Templar wrote: And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
You are correct that noone blames the car, but cars have been making advances in safety toward reducing harm caused. There is a conscious effort toward reducing the number of deaths.
You are also correct about people blaming the gun for the act, I couldn't agree more that when looking at the issue of gun violence you need to take a comprehensive look at all factors, as only then can you find the optimal solution to reducing harm.
2013/05/11 00:39:52
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Personly Im fine with the rate of deaths gun are(dont take this wrong way wish their was none what so ever)comapring people who legaly own guns to deaths reported via guns is less then 0.01% comapered to cars or other items.Also if you want to ban weapons ban pistals which are used more for murders then asult rifles which is only a small hand full of deaths every year.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/11 00:41:40
2013/05/11 00:45:55
Subject: Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
At least in Texas (it may vary a bit by state), you have to have a photo ID and insurance related to your car, including taking classes and having occasional license renewals. There are far fewer restrictions about tracing cars than guns at the moment, including tracing usage and purchases, and it's far easier to take away your license to use your car than it is to take away gun ownership rights. The safety and environmental impact of the car has to be tested yearly by a third party, and if it doesn't pass, you can't legally use it. Many newer cars are tracked by GPS for security reasons, and have systems where someone else can take over your car in case of it being stolen, and prevent a car thief from getting away with it during a police chase. Even when you are allowed to use it legally (which applies to most law-abiding citizens), there are truckloads of regulations on how to use your car, what hte proper response is in specific situations, etc, which you are expected to know. You are also expected to keep up with changes to the law and obey any and all road signs, and you can be arrested, fined, and occasionally even get your license revoked or jail time for disobeying the various regulations and road signs.
Now, a few edits, and let's apply all those to guns as a mental exercise (before you invariably spaz out, no, I'm not seriously suggesting all of this):
You need a gun license which has a photo Id and personally identifiable information. You need to take out insurance on each and every one of your guns. This license is entered in to a database, including what guns you own and records of who it was bought from. In order to get a license, you must take mandatory safety and usage classes, and you must PASS these classes, and renew your license by taking similar tests every few years. Restrictions on tracing gun usage and purchases will be flat out removed, allowing federal organizations to share information without restriction. Your gun ownership license can be revoked for any number of reasons, from committing a crime, to brandishing your gun while drunk, because you didn't pass a renewal test, and so on, and if it is revoked, you cannot legally carry or use the gun in public without being arrested and your gun taken away. In order for you to be able to use your guns outside of your own personal private property, your gun must have paperwork showing that it has been legally inspected and shown to have functioning safety equipment, be properly maintained, and have proper safety features maintained and working (such as a gun safe)-- if you don't, you cannot take your gun out beyond your own personal private property without being arrested and your gun taken away. Gun manufacturers are encouraged through subsidies and regulations to have integrated GPS tracking devices in the gun, and more advanced models will give the police the ability to disable the gun via remote control, with it being illegal to tamper with these systems (on pain of being arrested and your gun being taken away). In order to legally use your gun, you must know a large amount of regulations on when you can and cannot use your gun, how you can use it, and you must obey any and all signs indicating different usage areas (such as no-gun zones around schools and the like). It is your responsibility to keep up with changes to these regulations, and if you fail to obey them and the various signs in public buildings, you can have your license removed and your gun taken away.
Well, that was a fun mental exercise. Somehow, though, I doubt you'd honestly be okay with having guns regulated like cars are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/11 00:55:49
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/05/11 01:08:27
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
MrMoustaffa wrote: So wanting to carry a gun, for something that's far more likely to happen (forced carjacking, armed robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc.) makes sense, at least to me. I'm happy you live in an area where you feel safe, that's a good thing, really. I wish we all could live in that kind of a world, but not everyone enjoys that feeling of safety. For example, I work in some bad areas of town. I've had some run ins with drug addicts that only ended on a good note because I got extremely lucky and said the right thing. I could have easily been stabbed over something as stupid as the contents of my wallet, or the fact that I didn't know who was the coach of a certain basketball team (I kid you not, actually happened. Thank god I can BS with the best of them). During these run ins, there were no cops around. There was no security guard on the corner who just happened to notice my plight and intervened. I got out of those situations unharmed by luck, and that's it. I didn't have a gun on me either of those times, but to this day I wish I did.
Situations such as these are not that rare, I've been in a few myself, but have never felt the need for a weapon. That would be an unnecessary escalation and could make the situation worse. When I said I feel safe, it's not from living in a nice area, it's from knowing that random attacks rarely happen, and that even when they do the worst you have to worry about over here is that someone might get a bit of a kicking.
You're in England correct? I've heard you guys tend to have a lot of stabbings instead of shootings, but that may be rumor. As for the whole escalation thing, you don't pull the gun unless your life is at risk. In many self defense courses that deal with conceal carry, pulling your gun is the last resort. You're encouraged to talk to the guy, attempt to calm him down, and I've heard some even recommend trying to engage in nonlethal ways first (say pepper spray, tazer, or even your fists) It's not like the guy draws the knife and you shoot him right away. I can understand how people would get that impression though.
Like I said, I don't choose to carry a gun because I'd want to shoot them, just that if it came to it, I want the option. If it's a guy drugged out of his mind, things like a tazer or pepper spray can have little effect, and sadly there's not much you can do to reason with him. But if it's just some guy down on his luck with a knife and he asks for my wallet, I might just toss it to him and go on my way, since I don't see a reason to shoot someone over a couple hundred dollars, and I don't feel like getting stabbed over it either. But if there's a crazy man running at me with a knife screaming "I'm going to kill you!", I might draw immediately and open fire. It's very much a case by case type deal. As cheesy as it sounds, your brain is your best tool in that kind of situation. You should be thinking of every way possible to calm the situation down without violence. After all, you're carrying a gun.
MrMoustaffa wrote:So yeah, just trying to show you the other point of view. I realize you'll probably still disagree with it, but hey, at least I tried. Sorry for the off topic-ish post mods[/spoiler].
It is a really well reasoned post you made here and makes a certain amount of sense, my main issue is that the prevalence of firearms in your society has not made it safer for people, but quite the opposite. Rather than reducing those risks they have made violent situations not only more likely, but also more violent
I do have one question for people regarding self defence, if a new invention came about, which worked exactly as a gun did but was non lethal (when shot a target is incapacitated for say 30 mins), would you be ok with such an invention taking the place of firearms for self defence?
It would have to be 100% reliable, be able to work at a range of more than 15 feet, guaranteed to drop the person on the first "shot" no matter how drugged up he is, be able to "penetrate" thick clothing, and be able to knock out multiple assailants if need be (its really rare, but it happens). Of course, it would also need to be portable and small enough that you could conceal it on you without too much difficulty, otherwise there's no point to it. And of course the obvious things, easy to use, light enough to carry, cheap enough for the common man to own, made out of quality materials, etc. but that all goes without saying.
If they could pull all that off, and prove to me that it worked 100% of the time, I'd consider it. Until then, I'll carry the next best thing.
I'm really dragging this thread off topic though, if you'd like to continue to discuss this via PM feel free to hit me up.
Back on topic, I see little to no way that this planned march can do anything positive. Best case, and I mean BEST, a few people show up, the media ignores it, and everybody forgets in a week. They get stopped at the bridge since they have nowhere near enough to do anything meaningful, and are turned around.
Bad case scenario, march actually forms, goes peacefully, and every news agency across the world finds the scariest looking people in the crowd to zoom in on. The event is blown massively out of proportion, gun owners are demonized everywhere, and the anti gun lobby get's all the evidence it would ever need to ram through various bans, restrictions, and confiscation (and 3 senators were just caught recently stating that they want to confiscate guns outright, so the intent is there whether they'll admit it to our faces or not) instead of "showing the government who's boss", gun owners end up metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot, giving politicians and the average citizen all the reason they need to crack down on firearms.
Worst case? Some idiot in the crowd (or even worse, a cop or a soldier sent to keep an eye on things) accidentally or intentionally fires off a shot. Dozens are killed, the nation is outraged, politicians capitalize, and innocent people are the ones that are caught in the crossfire. I highly doubt it would be "revolution 2.0", but it would definitely add fuel to the fire, and give conspiracy nuts ammunition to say "hey, see that! They really are coming to get us!" Massive civil unrest, cats and dogs living together, Justin Beiber releases a decent album, Firefly getting renewed for a second season, 4 horsemen of the apocalypse ride in on my little ponies etc. etc.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
2013/05/11 01:21:06
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Grey Templar wrote:Yup, and there are less cars per person than there are guns per person.
Grey Templar wrote:And yet there is nobody claiming its the car's fault when someone dies. They blame the alcohol, cell phone, exhaustion, or driver inexperience when someone dies in a preventable car crash.
But when someone dies by gun, people blame the tool and not the Drugs, alcohol, history of violence, violation of gun safety, or whatever other reason caused the weapon to be used.
I know, its a shame that noone has seen the number of deaths caused by cars and thought to apply some sort of licensing requirement in order to use one, based on a test of proficiency.
597,689 Americans die of Heart disease and 100% of people who breath air die, what's your point? That still doesn't mean that gun related violence in America isn't an issue.
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
Melissia, I had suggested that in another thread a while back and got a rather well thought out response, I think it was KalashnikovMarine, in which it was pointed out that that only then creates an artificial seperation between 'haves' and 'have nots' based purely on their ability to pay insurance premiums. It didn't address the question of 'controlling' guns but simply created another aggravation into the equation.
Personally, as long as I was able to get a concealed carry license that was valid in any state, I'd be okay with that kind of gun control regulation.
Then again, I'm interested in owning a deadly weapon that is efficient at killing people, not a toy or something to hang on my wall, so...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/11 02:40:44
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/05/11 03:30:08
Subject: Re:Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
597,689 Americans die of Heart disease and 100% of people who breath air die, what's your point? That still doesn't mean that gun related violence in America isn't an issue.
Yeah but it's off-topic and doesn't add anything to the conversion other than a false idea that cars-related deaths are comparable to gun-related deaths despite the fact that they are quite different from each other (in terms of purpose, amount of time spent with them, where they are used,
how they're regulated, the likely hood of encountering them, etc), therefore making the comparison irrelevant that's why I made the apples and oranges comment earlier.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/11 03:43:14
2013/05/11 05:04:21
Subject: Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Shouldn't that be 100% of people who don't breath air die?
Cheers
Andrew
Either is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/11 05:05:56
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
dæl wrote: Fire extinguishers didn't kill 30,000 people in a year.
What exactly does that have to do with whether or not it's paranoid to have them around in the event of a very rare occurrence? Your claim was that being prepared for a remote possibility is paranoid.
No the crux of the issue is there are 30,000 grieving families in a single year. It doesn't matter what went before, that's not to say a downward trend isn't a good thing, it is, but it's hardly a number to take comfort in.
I agree, but you once again missed the point. We had more gun control regulations during the peak of gun violence. We have been steadily relaxing gun laws, and we have seen a steady decline in gun violence.
No, the data indicates that tens of thousands of people are dying, some will be easily preventable with just small reforms which would have little impact on peoples lives.
As the only one who's brought any sort of statistics into this conversation, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to provide something aside from unverifiable assertions to back
Where did I say something must be done? I spent however many pages trying to convince people that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you lot signed up to actually means something, only to be told the Constitution is the only thing ever, which is nonsense.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has exactly zero force of law in this country. I'm not sure why you believe that to be nonsense, but it's the case.
To use one you do, as is standard across the planet. When you have the capacity to cause harm, there should be some form of training.
Do I need training to chop my vegetables or fuel my car?
You misunderstand, in those cases you place yourself at risk, with a gun you do not.
What have background checks got to do with storage? Please answer the question asked.
That was part of the answer to the question asked. Do you think that someone who legally purchased their gun would not be able to open their own storage device or something? I'm not sure what you're arguing.
2013/05/11 05:13:39
Subject: Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
And yet, in your very statement you say that "guns are a right" while talking about suspension.
What quantifies a mental disease where someone cannot own a gun? What if they take their medication and do not lapse in taking their medication?
Simple fact of the matter is that if you're going to start reaching for the "mental disease" angle in regards to restricting guns, then you damned well better step back and recognize that mental illnesses require a recognizable diagnosis--which isn't always even done properly, since mental illnesses have different ways of manifesting with different symptoms.
2013/05/11 05:15:41
Subject: Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Melissia wrote: Actually, maybe Grey Templar is on to something, without realizing it. Perhaps we SHOULD regulate guns like we do cars.
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease. Cars are not a constitutional right and can be restricted to any degree.
GT, you are falling victim to Hume's Guillotine here.
2013/05/11 05:16:05
Subject: Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Any right can be suspended. What can suspend a right is up for debate.
I'm not qualified to say what level of mental illness would/should disqualify someone, but there should be something. Let doctors decide that.
But you are sane until proven otherwise. You are also innocent until proven guilty. So until one of those things happen you should have complete freedom to own whatever guns you please, and the freedom to not tell the government what you own either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/11 05:18:46
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Any right can be suspended. What can suspend a right is up for debate.
I'm not qualified to say what level of mental illness would/should disqualify someone, but there should be something. Let doctors decide that.
But there's the rub, now isn't it?
There are plenty of individuals with mental illnesses who function just fine. There are plenty of individuals without mental illnesses who should not ever be given anything beyond safety scissors.
But you are sane until proven otherwise. You are also innocent until proven guilty. So until one of those things happen you should have complete freedom to own whatever guns you please, and the freedom to not tell the government what you own either.
These two things are not related.
The "freedom to own whatever guns you please" is not necessarily related to "the freedom to not tell the government what you own either". This asinine idea of "If you register your guns; they'll come take them!" is overblown nonsense propagated by individuals who use their relationship with gun owners as a captive voter base.
The sooner people get past the idea that "registration" equates to "confiscation", the sooner we can move on to actually having semi-sensible discussions.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.
I don't want even the possibility of it happening. And if they do decide at some point to take our guns I certainly don't want them to have any help finding them.
Is it unlikely, yeah. But its still a possibility. One that should be protected against.
The Second Amendment's purpose is to provide a deterrent against Tyranny. If the potential Tyrannical government knows the location and type of every weapon owned by the citizens it entirely defeats the purpose and you may as well not have the second amendment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/11 05:27:24
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
