I actually varies from state to state
I know, which is why I made a comparison on the number of states that allow rather than a general statement about what is or is not allowed. Many more states allow the gun than the alcohol.
That is not clear either, in fact I think open carry is more restricted than conceal carry, again though, it's different from place to place.
Open carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, the statement I
made was clear. "More" being the key word.
Also, Open carry is but one half of the equation.
Not entirely true either.
It is entirely true. I CAN sell firearms from my personal collection, I CANNOT sell alcohol from my personal collection. The statement is not dependent on the way that the sale took place, just the fact that such as sale CAN take place.
It's important to debate the point being made, not the point you wish was made. The last three quote were not about my statements, but about what you wish my statements had been instead of what they were.
Of course, but I think you've missed the other regulations involved in firearms sales.
Does the seller of alcohol have to keep a bound book of all sales?
Yes, for tax purposes. Alcohol is taxed differently, thus they have to keep inventory of their sales. Now, it's not in a bound book, of course, but it's the exact same activity.
If an FFL does not perform the legally mandated checks and keep a bound book of all sales, that's a felony/multiple felonies.
Good. The right to deal firearms is not protected by the 2nd. Keep and bear, not have a business selling them. And if the alcohol merchant does not keep track of their sales they can be charged with multiple felonies for tax evasion.
The issue being discussed, however, was what the
purchaser is subjected to, not what the merchant is required to do. The merchant is liable if they do not perform the checks, but the purchaser is the one subjected to the checks.
Yes but there are laws in effect that ban the type of firearm one can own, in many jurisdictions.
That's what McDonald v. Chicago ended, actually. That decision ended such ban in Chicago by incorporating the 2nd to the states.
So while there isn't a complete ban on firearms in all municipalities, there are laws restricting the sales and possession which can closely resemble such.
Sale by an authorized firearm dealer, yes, and that is fine since the second makes no mention of a right to sell, but individuals can still sell from their own personal collection, provided they don't try to make it a business (something one cannot legally do with their alcohol).
Incorporation of the 2nd, however, makes restrictions on owning a gun in your home illegal, however. Now, one might say that they've gotten around this by doing sketchy things with regard to taxes, and they have, but these are not really restrictions, despite the fact that they can be very restrictive. This is no different than what is done with alcohol and tobacco, however.
Well to a degree, I would agree with you, in others I would not.
States and localities still have broad powers in which to deal with firearms.
Many do like, Maryland, DC, California, Mass., Hawaii, etc.
Not that broad after the incorporation of the 2nd.
Firearm laws are not universal for every state.
No, of course not, but there are some permissive universals which do not exist for alcohol (alcohol's universals are all restrictive in nature).
Federally is has to be dealth with, because it is supposed to be a right, which constantly get altered.
Therein lies the crux of the debate: Does the Bill of Rights exist to limit federal authority (as it claims in the preamble to the Bill of rights and as the history books tell us it was created to do in reaction ot the federalist/anti-federalist papers) or does it exist to exert the supreme authority of the Federal Government over the states in an effort to preserve individual rights?
History tells us it was created to be the former: a restriction on the federal government.
Unfortunately, to get it recognized federally, they had to try a state case of firearm bans.
Exactly. In order to reinterpret the constitution to support their position, they had to usurp state's rights.
I'm not really into this to test laws, on a state by state or locality basis.
I know. I'm using those examples to point out the flaw in the comparison, though.
I'm doing this to test people, who give me excuses like, preserving life and compelling public interest.
I know, but the test is flawed because of the reasons I point out: federal authority vs. State and local authority. People CAN live in dry counties if they despise the negative affects of alcohol. People can also choose to live in very permissive counties with regard to alcohol.
However people
cannot live in
gun-free counties. They can live in somewhat less gun-friendly counties (although that really amounts to "gun-neutral" when viewed from a global perspective rather than the amero-centric perspective). My point is that localizing such isues, rather than federalizing them, allows more people to live with whatever degree of permissiveness or restrictiveness they wish to live under. It guarantees the highest degree of personal freedom by allowing the most varied number of choices. Because that's what freedom
really is: the range of options one has at their disposal. The greater teh range of options, the more freedom they have
Alcohol's societal effects can arguably be larger, than that of guns.
Not really. If we look at things fully systemically, and include
all of the effects that guns and alcohol have and have had, it's pretty much neck and neck. They both have many positives too, but people don't like to think of those. Alcohol sales helped build this country. But without guns (especially improved technology of guns as compared to the weapons others used against us), it never could have existed or survived.
I want to know if, people will actively recognize their own contradictions.
So do I, that's why I bring up the federal vs. state thing.
But remember, it's important to make sure you are corect in noting a contradiction. This requires one to use accurate equivalencies and premises, rather than assumed ones. More on that later.
The reasons why they believe alcohol related deaths are acceptable but firearm deaths are not.
That's a strawman, though. Nobody is actually making the claim that alcohol related deaths are acceptable. People support restrictions on the sale of alcohol and regulation of alcohol. Few people call for an outright ban, though. Many people who support gun control would also be on board with alcohol restrictions that
they believe would save lives as opposed to the one's you presented to look similar to proposed gun restrictions. For example, mandatory ignition locks for vehicles calibrated to prevent cars from starting of the driver blows above the legal limit of .08, for example. Others might wish to see the legal limit lowered further still, even to the point of a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving.
Trying to mimic the proposed gun control laws (as you have done in this thread) is sheer folly, because alcohol's dangers are not even
remotely similar to those presented by firearms. This means you aren't even testing what you wish to test: people's consistency on regulating societal dangers. Even someone who
would support increased restrictions on alcohol would look at your proposals as absurd because your proposals
were not designed to save lives from the dangers of alcohol, instead they were designed to look similar to the proposed restrictions on guns.
Your proposals are irrational, not simply because they won't work to achieve the "desired goal", but
because they were designed with an entirely different goal in mind.
Basically if death from a non necessary thing is unacceptable, that should be universal for all non necessary things.
That is not an existing premise for gun control, though. The problem here is the same as what happened in the first few quotes of this post: you aren't arguing against statements which are actually made. You are arguing against imaginary statements.
I'm not really wanting to debate federal laws, I'm just using the further restrictions for the basis of why one should be more available, while another should not.
If you get what I mean.
I get it, but the problem is that you aren't really debating the issue you claim to want to debate either, by virtue of using a innacurate comparison to attack what amounts to a strawman argument.
That being said, there is definitely some potential to your approach here, you just fell into problem of seeing equivalencies when they don't exist which caused the desired goal of testing consistency to become impossible.
But equivalencies between proposed gun restrictions and proposed alcohol-related restrictions
do exist (the key here is to use real proposals for both that have similarities). The thread can be salvaged by making accurate equivalencies. For example, if you had used the proposal to make owner-specific trigger locks mandatory and compared it to breathalyzer ignition locks, you would have been spot on. If someone supports the trigger locks in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, they would need to support the ignition locks in order to be consistent in their desire to prevent unnecessary deaths. If they support trigger locks in order to prevent crime-related deaths (stolen guns, for example), the same goal is achieved with ignition locks (DUI manslaughter). I can't really think of a premise which supports one restriction but not the other (although that does not mean that one doesn't exist).
The point I'm making is that in order to test consistency, you have to have
real equivalencies that are dependent on
real premises that people employ (rather than the premises you imagine they must employ). The argument you have presented here does not do this.