More on Gun Control

[Tony]

Ok, THIS is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Please use this as a reference before accusing me of doing the same.

Thanks!

No its not. Your justification for resticting guns is the same justification John Ashcroft uses to justify the Patriot Act.

 

[DanishDynamite]

As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

 

[Tony]

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

Why?

Constitutional rights aren't subject to necessity.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Why?

Constitutional rights aren't subject to necessity.

Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).

 

[EvilYeti]

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Yeah, its pretty amusing to watch. Whats especially funny is that the second amendment is still being enforced exactly as its authors intended. After all, "arms" at the time were defined as black powder firearms and melee weapons. Sales and possession of such weapons are pretty much unrestricted! They even get their own special hunting season in some areas.

What's doubly amusing is the ficticious idea that the constitution and its amendments are absolute. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected by the first amendment and by the same token, neither is selling assault rifles to wanted felons protected by the second.

 

[Wolverine]

As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Except that the Second Amendment (not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights) actually exists, it's panifully simple to provide evidence of its existence, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Despite your flippant comparison of pro-gunners to creationists, the Second Amendment is a perfectly relevant inclusion in a thread devoted to the subject of gun control.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Judicial precedent does not qualify as evidence? I beg to differ. The court decisions cited by Kodiak are perfectly legitimate, and again, pertinent in the course of this dialogue. Furthermore, your comment suggests that anyone with a different view than yourself on this topic is somehow not a skeptic -- which I'd find laughable if I didn't consider it to be in such poor taste. Feel free to correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression.

If you find this thread uninteresting, perhaps you'd care to begin another, in the specific area of your choosing. The Consitutional issue arose in response to a statement which required correction; it is indeed relevant to the course of discussion, whether or not you're bored by the commentary. I'm sorry that you've grown weary of seeing the Second Amendment explained. If people actually understood what it meant, the repetition might not be necessary.

 

[Shinytop]

Dear EvilYeti

If you are indeed a California resident you know the confiscation I speak of was only by type of gun, not for felonies as you have stated twice. The confiscation was done by declaring types of guns illegal after the legislature had promised no such law would occur. The types of guns were chosen by cosmetic reasons, not by ability to fire auto as that was already regulated. The thrust of my post was the breaking of promises by the legislature. Do you declare that false? Please stick to the subject this time.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Wolverine:

Except that the Second Amendment (not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights) actually exists, it's panifully simple to provide evidence of its existence, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Certainly it exists, just as the Bible exists.

Despite your flippant comparison of pro-gunners to creationists, the Second Amendment is a perfectly relevant inclusion in a thread devoted to the subject of gun control.

It is relevant if the discussion concerns the legality of gun ownership. It is irrelevant when the discussion concerns whether free access to guns is a good idea. Check the threadstarter in regard to what this thread is about.

Judicial precedent does not qualify as evidence? I beg to differ. The court decisions cited by Kodiak are perfectly legitimate, and again, pertinent in the course of this dialogue.

See above as to why they are of no interest.

Furthermore, your comment suggests that anyone with a different view than yourself on this topic is somehow not a skeptic -- which I'd find laughable if I didn't consider it to be in such poor taste. Feel free to correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression.

You have the wrong impression.

If you find this thread uninteresting, perhaps you'd care to begin another, in the specific area of your choosing.

Why would you think I find it uninteresting?

The Consitutional issue came up in response to a statement which required correction; it is indeed relevant to the course of discussion, whether or not you're bored by the commentary. I'm sorry that you've grown weary of seeing the Second Amendment explained. If people actually understood what it meant, the repetition might not be necessary.

As I said before, the constitution is irrelevant in regards to whether free access to guns is a good idea or not. And that is what this thread is about.

The discussion about what the second amendment actually means, is by no means closed. It is, however, not relevant here.

 

[Grammatron]

Wolverine:Certainly it exists, just as the Bible exists.
It is relevant if the discussion concerns the legality of gun ownership. It is irrelevant when the discussion concerns whether free access to guns is a good idea. Check the threadstarter in regard to what this thread is about.
See above as to why they are of no interest.
You have the wrong impression.
Why would you think I find it uninteresting?
As I said before, the constitution is irrelevant in regards to whether free access to guns is a good idea or not. And that is what this thread is about.

The discussion about what the second amendment actually means, is by no means closed. It is, however, not relevant here.

I guess I am the "threadstarter" so I should comment. While indeed I started the thread on gun availability or rather if the availability makes crime possible or easier or neither. I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO. Part of the point of this thread was that limiting access to guns doesn't stop the woo-woos out there from killing people in mass.

 

[Wolverine]

I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO.

Thanks for weighing in. I was beginning to think my reading comprehension skills had taken a nose dive...

 

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:

I guess I am the "threadstarter" so I should comment. While indeed I started the thread on gun availability or rather if the availability makes crime possible or easier or neither.

Indeed you did.

I did however title it gun control because legislation plays an important role on availability and 2nd amendment is definitely relevant to this discussion, at least IMO.

So you feel that your title "More on Gun Control" somehow alludes to the 2nd ammendment, even if the content of your post does not?

Part of the point of this thread was that limiting access to guns doesn't stop the woo-woos out there from killing people in mass.

Which has nothing to do with what it says in the Bibl...Constitution.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks for weighing in. I was beginning to think my reading comprehension skills had taken a nose dive...

No comment on your reading abilities. Your comprehension abilities, however....

 

[Tony]

Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).

That doesnt answer the question, I asked Why?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:

That doesnt answer the question, I asked Why?

Of course it does.

 

[jan]

Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment.

 

[Tony]

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

Why?

Constitutional rights aren't relevant to the topic (see first post).

I say again, it doesnt anwer the question. Why discuss the reasons for or against increasing the killing ability of the general populace?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment.

Which is why I'm trying to help the poor buggers. They just don't understand what is in their best interst.

 

[Grammatron]

Wow, I never knew that someone else I never met before can tell me what I am/was thinking

Grammatron:Indeed you did.
So you feel that your title "More on Gun Control" somehow alludes to the 2nd ammendment, even if the content of your post does not?

Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.

Which has nothing to do with what it says in the Bibl...Constitution.

It's funny how you accuse people who go back to constitution of being "fundies" like creationist. However, I bet if tomorrow someone in the state government forbid reporters of using certain words and critiquing certain people, I'm sure you would have no problem with that assault of free speech, you'd merely call it a correction of what free speech was suppose to be.

 

[Tony]

Yeah, its pretty amusing to watch.

No more amusing than when atheists gripe about the separation of church and state. Or when the ACLU refers to the first amendment. Or when defense lawyers bring up that pesky trail by jury.

If you hate the constitution so much, you could move to Mexico.

 

[Tony]

Which is why I'm trying to help the poor buggers. They just don't understand what is in their best interst.

Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?

Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will.