Do Fewer Guns Mean Less Crime? - Page 25

Scucca · 05-14-08, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

You ask us to surrender one of our constitutional rights, because somewhere, some clown might beat up his wife.

The problem is that the gun lobby tends to try to be painfully simplistic, refusing to acknowledge the diverse nature of gun owners. We have a significant minority (remember a gun owner is more likely to use it to attack their family than use it in self-defence) that use guns against the liberty of others. If you're not part of that significant minority, you have nothing to worry about.

Lachean · 05-14-08, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

The problem is that the gun lobby tends to try to be painfully simplistic, refusing to acknowledge the diverse nature of gun owners. We have a significant minority (remember a gun owner is more likely to use it to attack their family than use it in self-defence) that use guns against the liberty of others. If you're not part of that significant minority, you have nothing to worry about.

The use of force between individuals is no deprivation of civil rights. You however are in fact arguing for government deprivation of rights.

Doc Howl · 05-14-08, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

The problem is that the gun lobby tends to try to be painfully simplistic, refusing to acknowledge the diverse nature of gun owners. We have a significant minority (remember a gun owner is more likely to use it to attack their family than use it in self-defence) that use guns against the liberty of others. If you're not part of that significant minority, you have nothing to worry about.

It's a painfully simplistic concept. The people have the right to bear arms.

There's nothing in that amendment demanding that I get my spouses' permission.

And I'm told that I have nothing to worry about all the time. I was told that the PATRIOT Act would only be used against terrorists (it's #1 use now is to prosecute people pirating music). I was told that the ESA2003 and The MCA would only be used to "protect" me, and now they are the basis for the "homegrown terrorist act" which essentially allows the government to declare anyone, anywhere, a terrorist.

So you'll excuse me if I think your idea would be misapplied. They always are. Instantly.

Scucca · 05-14-08, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

It's a painfully simplistic concept. The people have the right to bear arms.

There's nothing in that amendment demanding that I get my spouses' permission.

Its not permission. It is consultation designed to assess threats.

Do you support any regulation on gun markets at all?

rivrrat · 05-14-08, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Its not permission. It is consultation designed to assess threats.

It's a "consultation" designed to gather heresay with no basis in fact.

Quote:

Do you support any regulation on gun markets at all?

No.

Doc Howl · 05-14-08, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Its not permission. It is consultation designed to assess threats.

Again, threat assessment isn't a requirement of the 2d amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Do you support any regulation on gun markets at all?

None whatsoever. You should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower on your back, if that's what you want.

Scucca · 05-14-08, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

None whatsoever. You should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower on your back, if that's what you want.

Crikey! Such a stance will of course maximise the numbers of victims. I find that irrational

Doc Howl · 05-14-08, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Crikey! Such a stance will of course maximise the numbers of victims. I find that irrational

It's also the way the 2d amendment is worded:

Amendment 2
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.

Infringed: To encroach on someone or something; to impact in any way.

Scucca · 05-14-08, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

It's also the way the 2d amendment is worded

I've already referred to the 2nd amendment in this thread. Winkler (2007, Scrutinising the 2nd Amendment, Michigan Law Review, Vol 105 Issue 4, pp 683-733) concludes that "the Second Amendment's individual rights to bear arms is appropriately ruled by a deferential, reasonableness analysis under which nearly all gun control regulations would survive judicial scrutiny".

Maximising the number of victims from gun ownership is a celebration of coercion and remains irrational

Doc Howl · 05-14-08, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

I've already referred to the 2nd amendment in this thread. Winkler (2007, Scrutinising the 2nd Amendment, Michigan Law Review, Vol 105 Issue 4, pp 683-733) concludes that "the Second Amendment's individual rights to bear arms is appropriately ruled by a deferential, reasonableness analysis under which nearly all gun control regulations would survive judicial scrutiny".

Maximising the number of victims from gun ownership is a celebration of coercion and remains irrational

That's nice. You and I can both read the amendment, and it says "shall not be infringed".

If the Government could come up with a ruling like Plessy V Ferguson, they can occasionally make a completely stupid ruling like the one you have listed.

According to the black and white wording of the amendment, Winkler's call is blatantly unconstitutional.