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.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

I think it's pretty rare but when I lived in NYC, guns were very difficult to get legally, but it was possible, whereas cane swords, switchblades, throwing stars, knives over a few inches, and tasers were flat out illegal, period, full stop.

In Iowa, it's like what you describe with the latter: my conceal carry permit also covers a variety of other weapons like switchblades etc.

In MI, I cannot legally carry a fixed blade (except a hunting knife while out hunting), even with a concealed carry licence, because our licences (called a CPL) only cover pistols.

I see it as unconstitutional, but law is law so I follow it.

I think spring loaded blades are illegal in NY state general (IIRC). I don't think swords themselves are illegal here, although wearing them openly may vary from place to place. They certainly don't give a gak where I live, or at least they don't care enough to enforce it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.

I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing

Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?
Is it not reasonable to have few controls to ensure a certain minimum level of safety is held?
In Canada that handgun would have required the following:

"Restricted and prohibited firearms
•Unload the firearms; and
•Attach secure locking devices to the firearms; and
•Lock the firearms in a sturdy, non-transparent container; and
•Remove the bolts or bolt carriers from any automatic firearms (if removable).

Any one of the above items would have averted this needless scary moment.

I know us as Canadians we hold our beer as close to a constitutional right but we did not overthrow our government for the various alcohol controls that keep us from driving vehicles around under the influence.

I personally feel that if a weapon is not on your person (whether via a holster or in your hands) it should not be loaded.

Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".

What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.

For the record! this is coming from a British gun owner, who feels our laws go too far, but US gun culture (which the very liberal laws are an expression of) result in incidents like this. My feeling is that accross the US gun laws should reflect good gun safty. Not a ban, but more restrictions on how they are stored, carried and handled, and a cultural change where people like the woman in the OP stop treating them like toys and treat them with respect.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".

What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.

I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?

As for 'special case', things like 'the right to drive cars' are not constitutionally protected. Your argument that explosives are regulated backs up my question, there ARE regulations and restrictions on 'arms' as it stands.

Smacks wrote:That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing

So you admit to trolling threads about people getting hurt/dying in order to provoke people who object to having their rights eroded because someone else was stupid.

Classy.

Steve steveson wrote:What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.

Because of the Constitution.

You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?

And up goes the wall!

He spelled it out pretty clearly for you, it's the part in speech marks: "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions". This argument has already been used in this topic, and gets used a lot. The challenge (should you choose to accept it) is to say why that is true for guns and not for other restricted things, without invoking the constitution (which we have already established is not a valid explanation).

"I'm confused", "I don't understand" and "are you saying something, you're obviously not saying?" are also not valid answers.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer

Because of the Constitution.

More walling? Maybe if you just keep saying it, he'll go away, and stop asking difficult questions.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
So you admit to trolling threads about people getting hurt/dying in order to provoke people who object to having their rights eroded because someone else was stupid.

No, I don't. That sounds more like something you pulled out your ass.

What I will say is that there is a clique here who I have seen bully and browbeat other people (other Americans) on this issue until they no longer wish to discuss it. I don't think that's right, you can't win arguments just by being stubborn, you need to make good points. I always join these conversations so that any person who wants to chime in and say "I'm in favour of gun control", won't be on their own, and anyone who wants to just stubbornly repeat the same bad arguments over and over, will really have to commit to it

 Smacks wrote:


What I will say is that there is a clique here who I have seen bully and browbeat other people (other Americans) on this issue until they no longer wish to discuss it. I don't think that's right, you can't win arguments just by being stubborn, you need to make good points. I always join these conversations so that any person who wants to chime in and say "I'm in favour of gun control", won't be on their own.

Ah yes, the clique that constantly drones on about how Americans in favor of gun rights are stupid compared to the rest of the world, that our country is backward and "wrong", and that the Constitution is not valid. Because that clique very much exists and they do as much bullying and browbeating as anyone else. Don't try and make it sound like you're some sort of white knight for the poor, opressed anti-gun crowd.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
That clique very much exists and they do as much bullying and browbeating as anyone else.

Thus balance is restored.

 Smacks wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.

I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing

You're not admitting to intentionally arguing to start a flame war and/or trolling, are you?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
[Because of the Constitution.
You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.

But the actual text says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The weasel-clause in all this is a "well regulated militia".
Never mind most things that can be proposed would not prevent people "to keep and bear arms".
(Note, most information I am getting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
This makes sense that is exactly in the wording of the second amendment.

So there are a few interpretations all of which below point to a civic level of responsibility.
It really does make the case that a gun owner must be committed to upholding the state.
It would not be a far cry off to require gun owner to "register" with a militia and some commitment in writing for the right to bear arms.
Food for thought anyway, the intent of the founding fathers had a few considerations due to what was going on back in the day.
I do not see much there where an armed populous answerable to no-one was the desired outcome.

Thanks guys, now I know a whole bunch about a government that is not my own.

 Nostromodamus wrote:


Because of the Constitution.

You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.

Except that is little more than set of laws that can be changed, like any other law. Things have been added to it, and even then removed from it response to the needs of society. It is not some divine mandate etched into the very fabric reality so long as America should exist. That the barriers to changing are higher, and the required political will far greater don't really change that.

Positions that call out demands for change that might fly in the face of the constitutional gun protections, or take positions in which guns are compared to things that aren’t' constitutionally protected can simply be taken as pointing out that perhaps the constitutional protections afforded guns should be modified to at least some extent, up to and including removal in the most extreme cases. Simply pointing out that "Hey that's not constitutional" isn't particularly clever or insightful because obviously the strength of those constitutional protections is part of the "Problem" that party sees in the first place.

While it would probably be fair to say such changes are so unlikely to actually happen as to be not worth consideration that's a matter of practicality. I'm not sure it has much bearing on what would be "Ideal", "Right" or the "Correct" way to do things. It certainly has no bearing on what's fair or moral or decent, etc.. . There exist some laws that are crap laws, there have existed things in the constitution that by explicit mention or omission have been crap. That something is in the constitution is not a defence for that thing in and of itself.

It should be able to stand up to challenge, criticism and questioning on it's own merits as proof of the validity the law giving it such fierce protection, that it should be in the constitution.

This is not me taking any particular stance on the 2nd adornment or any specific arguments or comparsions that have been made. Simply that "but because constitution" is piss-poor way of addressing anything.

Not sure why you equate pro gun with being a conservative right issue. The majority of democrats are pro 2nd amendment too.

 CptJake wrote:
Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

Many states differentiate firearms and other weaponry. I gave my example of Texas where a carry permit means you can carry a firearm openly or concealed, but there is no such method to carry a blade over 5.5 inches long. A club is likewise out of the question, with the only exceptions being for certified law enforcement and security officers. So if I would prefer to carry a collapsible baton for self defense, I do not have that option but could carry a .44 mag or a shotgun (that last one doesn't even need a permit!). But Texas may be kind of an extreme example on lax on guns strict on everything else not guns.

For whatever reason, the right to bear arms only ever seems to apply to firearms.

Oh and "strict constitutionalists" pretty much ignore the "well regulated militia" part here.

 Smacks wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.

I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing

Why do you hate weapons so much? Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other? If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration? You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.

 Chongara wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:


Because of the Constitution.

You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.

Except that is little more than set of laws that can be changed, like any other law. Things have been added to it, and even then removed from it response to the needs of society. It is not some divine mandate etched into the very fabric reality so long as America should exist. That the barriers to changing are higher, and the required political will far greater don't really change that.

Positions that call out demands for change that might fly in the face of the constitutional gun protections, or take positions in which guns are compared to things that aren’t' constitutionally protected can simply be taken as pointing out that perhaps the constitutional protections afforded guns should be modified to at least some extent, up to and including removal in the most extreme cases. Simply pointing out that "Hey that's not constitutional" isn't particularly clever or insightful because obviously the strength of those constitutional protections is part of the "Problem" that party sees in the first place.

While it would probably be fair to say such changes are so unlikely to actually happen as to be not worth consideration that's a matter of practicality. I'm not sure it has much bearing on what would be "Ideal", "Right" or the "Correct" way to do things. It certainly has no bearing on what's fair or moral or decent, etc.. . There exist some laws that are crap laws, there have existed things in the constitution that by explicit mention or omission have been crap. That something is in the constitution is not a defence for that thing in and of itself.

It should be able to stand up to challenge, criticism and questioning on it's own merits as proof of the validity the law giving it such fierce protection, that it should be in the constitution.

This is not me taking any particular stance on the 2nd adornment or any specific arguments or comparsions that have been made. Simply that "but because constitution" is piss-poor way of addressing anything.

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Prestor Jon wrote:


If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then there is no discussion to be had at all. Something with guns happen: "Constitution. No gun restrictions. No gun law changes. End of story", that's our reality. The only space for discussion is one that takes place outside the our immediate political reality. Because the immediate political reality is that there can't and won't be any change, full stop. Thread over before it starts.

But hey, that's just one 3/5ths of a person's view on what makes for interesting or relevant discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Otherwise you're just discussing a cultural issue in a cultural vacuum, which is the most pointless way of discussing the issue that I can think of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then there is no discussion to be had at all. Something with guns happen: "Constitution. No gun restrictions. No gun law changes. End of story", that's our reality. The only space for discussion is one that takes place outside the our immediate political reality. Because the immediate political reality is that there can't and won't be any change, full stop. Thread over before it starts.

But hey, that's just one 3/5ths of a person's view on what makes for interesting or relevant discussion.

I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

 Hordini wrote:



I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.

The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".

 Hordini wrote:
Why do you hate weapons so much?

Kind of a "loaded" question. I could ask you in return why do you love weapons so much? But I wouldn't presume that about you.

 Hordini wrote:
Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other?

No.

 Hordini wrote:
If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration?

I don't really, people are often grossly irresponsible with cars. I look forward to them being self driving.

 Hordini wrote:
You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.

I'm not really sure why you think that about me. seems quite personal though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".

What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.

I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?

As for 'special case', things like 'the right to drive cars' are not constitutionally protected. Your argument that explosives are regulated backs up my question, there ARE regulations and restrictions on 'arms' as it stands.

Are you intentionaly ignoring half my words? "which can be changed in light of incidents and technology"... Constitional protection is not an objective reason for not looking at change.

I won't bother replying to all the others who have just said "because constitution", as the question remains. What is the problem with looking at the law, without just saying "becuase constitution", because the constitution can, and has, been changed. Why not again?

 Steve steveson wrote:
Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".

What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.

For the record! this is coming from a British gun owner, who feels our laws go too far, but US gun culture (which the very liberal laws are an expression of) result in incidents like this. My feeling is that accross the US gun laws should reflect good gun safty. Not a ban, but more restrictions on how they are stored, carried and handled, and a cultural change where people like the woman in the OP stop treating them like toys and treat them with respect.

keep in mind that with cars, regulation is tied to their use on public infrastructure. If a vehicle is only ever used on private property, very little regulations apply. Cars also arent covered by the bill of rights.

Explosives are also a bit different. They aren't really "arms" in and of themselves typically (rather a component), and aren't really something a citizen soldier would historically be supplying either beyond ammunition components (which you can generally buy over the counter without any issues most places here). It's just not something that really affects much of anyone directly so few are bothered about it.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?

And up goes the wall!

He spelled it out pretty clearly for you, it's the part in speech marks: "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions". This argument has already been used in this topic, and gets used a lot. The challenge (should you choose to accept it) is to say why that is true for guns and not for other restricted things, without invoking the constitution (which we have already established is not a valid explanation).

"I'm confused", "I don't understand" and "are you saying something, you're obviously not saying?" are also not valid answers.

Is there a single enumerated right in the US constitution (including all the amendments) that is more heavily regulated on a federal and/or state and/or local level than firearm ownership? I don't believe you'll find any if you look.

What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.

 Ouze wrote:
There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea. If you have to dress to accommodate a holster, then that is what you should do.

Agreed. Off body carry is a terrible idea

OgreChubbs wrote:
But doesnt everyone having a gun mean more violant crimes? Like if everyone has a gun and I want to rob someone I maze well kill em to minimize the risk of harm. But I am out of here everytime I post on the board I get band because I disagree with americans admins that hate me.
Wtf something freaky is goin on here with me quotes

Violent crime has been declining steady for many years. This is another of those "common sense myths" that people like to use as evidence of why owning a gun is bad. It is as commonly used as the "blood in the streets" every time laws around firearms are relaxed... and both are without merit

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is what puzzles me. The constitution protects the right to bear arms. Why are states allowed to pass laws that infringe the right to bear arms? Why are swords illegal? They were common weapons -- de rigeur for gentlemen, in fact -- at the time the constitition was worked out.

Perhaps because swords are a less efficient way to defend yourself than firearms? Knives are much easier to carry, and more practical for more tasks than defense

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK, it's something I read earlier in the thread.

And you felt it appropriate to repeat the line without confirming that fact?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
In MI, I cannot legally carry a fixed blade (except a hunting knife while out hunting), even with a concealed carry licence, because our licences (called a CPL) only cover pistols.

I see it as unconstitutional, but law is law so I follow it.

Indiana is very open on carrying items to defend yourself. Autoknives were just recently permitted back into civilian ownership. Spring assisted blades are also no issue here. And for handguns you apply for a license to carry - you can determine whether you open or conceal.

 Talizvar wrote:
Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?

You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"

 Talizvar wrote:
But the actual text says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The weasel-clause in all this is a "well regulated militia".
Never mind most things that can be proposed would not prevent people "to keep and bear arms".
(Note, most information I am getting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
This makes sense that is exactly in the wording of the second amendment.

So there are a few interpretations all of which below point to a civic level of responsibility.
It really does make the case that a gun owner must be committed to upholding the state.
It would not be a far cry off to require gun owner to "register" with a militia and some commitment in writing for the right to bear arms.

Even if we accept your premise that the Second Amendment is a collective right (spoiler alert; it isn't) you may wish to know the following;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And "well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the Second Amendment was drafted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.

You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.

You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.

We already have over 20,000 Federal, State, County/Parish, and Local laws on the books regulating firearms in some shape, form, or fashion. That's more than enough without getting into the territory of "infringement".


Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.


Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.

You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.

None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted. I thought that was clear in my post. Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm? Try to speak with specificity with your examples of possible.

What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.

 CptJake wrote:
Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

Wow. I just looked up some articles about switchblades and apparently you can't even own them anywhere, even on Indian lands unless you're a member of the armed forces and are issued one. Or have only one arm.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm