What's new
By:

Gun Control

Gameface said:
Stop being dumb. Our rights are not rights to services nor are they obligations on businesses to provide specific products or services.
Click to expand...

That was my point.

Gameface said:
I can never force a business to produce an AR-15. However, if a law is passed by the government (the organization capable of violating my rights) that RESTRICTS that company from producing AR-15s and RESTRICTS me from being able to buy or own one then there is a right to bear arms/2nd Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Stop being dumb. You are equating the right to bear arms with the right to own a specific sort of weapon, when they are not the same thing.

Gameface said:
I agree, those restrictions would require a pretty high level of justification. The restriction itself would have to serve a specific purpose. You've pointed out exactly what's wrong with the current gun restriction proposals. They don't fix anything. They are arbitrary. They target what is currently the most popular style of firearm purchased because it resembles military weapons in appearance. The weapons are popular because they resemble military weapons in appearance. So what's proposed is that we ban the cosmetic features of the rifle that make it popular. It does nothing to keep us safer, it just means that the rifle mass murderers use to kill people will not look as scary.
Click to expand...

I agree with that entire paragraph.
 
One Brow said:
That was my point.



Stop being dumb. You are equating the right to bear arms with the right to own a specific sort of weapon, when they are not the same thing.



I agree with that entire paragraph.
Click to expand...

Depending on the specifics I disagree. People don't get to infringe that right despite how they phrase it. Limiting the mags and types of weapons is trying to do exactly that.
 
I hear that in Chicago you have the right to freedom of speech but must pay a registration fee of $50 per word spoken. We should put the same restriction on bullets, religion, association, press, trial by jury, & cruel and unusual punishment.
 
franklin said:
I hear that in Chicago you have the right to freedom of speech but must pay a registration fee of $50 per word spoken. We should put the same restriction on bullets, religion, association, press, trial by jury, & cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...

Yeah that'll fix the ecomony.
Oh wait.... and so will legalizing pot.
 
Stoked said:
Depending on the specifics I disagree. People don't get to infringe that right despite how they phrase it. Limiting the mags and types of weapons is trying to do exactly that.
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to specific products anymore than you have a right to specific services.
 
franklin said:
I hear that in Chicago you have the right to freedom of speech but must pay a registration fee of $50 per word spoken.
Click to expand...

Yes, after all those people in Chicago were killed by those words being yelled out by some nut on a street corner, they decided to crack down on the injuries caused by excessive talking.
 
One Brow said:
You don't have a right to specific products anymore than you have a right to specific services.
Click to expand...

We don't have a right to have someone give us those things but we DO have a right to not be prohibited from those things. I see we haven't moved on.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, after all those people in Chicago were killed by those words being yelled out by some nut on a street corner, they decided to crack down on the injuries caused by excessive talking.
Click to expand...

You've already dismissed the Wifi murders as being a meaningless blip on the radar. No surprise you're now dismissing the Haley's Comet suicides, holy wars, etc. etc.

I thought of another: homosexual relations are linked to much higher incidences of STD's. We should limit the # of encounters and put a fee on each relation in order to stop them from being AIDS terrorists within their own communities.

/One Bro
 
Gameface said:
We don't have a right to have someone give us those things but we DO have a right to not be prohibited from those things. I see we haven't moved on.
Click to expand...

You have a right to purchase them if they are legally produced. That does not mean you have a right have their production be legal.
 
franklin said:
You've already dismissed the Wifi murders as being a meaningless blip on the radar. No surprise you're now dismissing the Haley's Comet suicides, holy wars, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Basically, you're trying to equate a position that I hold, which is trying to find practical solutions that will work, with one that is extreme, regardless of what will work. I hope you'll understand if I don't feel particularly cooperative in that effort.

franklin said:
I thought of another: homosexual relations are linked to much higher incidences of STD's. We should limit the # of encounters and put a fee on each relation in order to stop them from being AIDS terrorists within their own communities.
Click to expand...

Actually, lesbian relationships are link to a lower number of STDs, so by that logic, we should just prevent men from having sex.

/Straw Brow

After all, it's not like I have at any point in this thread advocated for a handgun ban in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top