If they are legal to produce, barring some other consideration, of course.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
If they are legal to produce, barring some other consideration, of course.
Banning the production of them is the same as banning me from owning one in the sense that it infringes on my second amendment. Do not pass go do not collect 200.
Do you support the banning of handguns in the US? Yes or no.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_-N9_tnWBo
Also
"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem." - Joe Rogan
Also
"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem." - Joe Rogan
No, they are not the same thing, and you still have connected the production of a specific magazine size of caliber to the Second Amendment in any meaningful way.
I am not opposed to banning them, but do not support banning them, either, as a first principle. I support whatever the evidence indicates will provide for safer streets.
My current guess is that if carrying guns were more like driving cars (you had to prove your knowledge and abilities, register and license, carry insurance, etc.) that it would be safer all around than either a "no gun" or "zero gun control" extreme. But that's just a guess.
Justify for me a purpose for banning the production of 9mm weapons that is something other than an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment.
Are they made of poisonous material? Do they blow up every time you use them?
The attempt to ban high capacity magazines and individual weapons is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment, nothing more. The people proposing these laws admit that none of them would have prevented the shootings that have taken place. So it can't be about preventing similar shootings. It is simply that supporters feel that American citizens should not have them. Well to bad.
I do not have to prove why I have the right to the 2nd amendment or ay other amendment. You have to prove why I should not have that right. You want to seperate the issue and I will not allow it. Banning current weapons and accessories that I am legally allowed to own right now infringes on my second amendment. You are not arguing that producers simply no longer choose to supply a specific item, you are arguing for being prohibited by the government from suppling a specific item.
You seemed confused on where the burden of proof lies. I do not buy your arguement or your attempt to cloud it and nit pick at it. There are issues that I will give ground on. My rights are not one of them.
I don't have a specific argument for 9 mm. Could you ban 50 mm weapons without impinging on your 2nd amendment rights? Can there be any sort of weapon ban that does not impinge (say, a ban on Sarin gas)? I don't recall you saying that every sort of weapon possible should be legal to own.
So, you are agreeing there can be could reasons to limit your possession of a weapon. I'm quite willing to concede that such reasons may not apply to individual 9 mm bullets. Thus, we have (again) moved from saying it's 'My right, period!' to 'It's my right as long as there is not a compelling reason to say otherwise', which is a position I can agree with, and all that's left to discuss are which reasons are compelling, and to what degree. Perhaps we can stay there, this time?
Is the only legitimate compelling reason the complete prevention of such incidents? What if modifications were included that could, say, cut the typical loss of life by 90% (that is, given the same amount of time, a shooter might only be able to kill 2 people instead of 20). Would saving those 18 lives qualify as a compelling government interest? Or, are you of the opinion thee is no difference between 2 dying and 20 dying? Would there be a difference between 10 and 20? 19 and 20?
Of course, I'm not saying any such modifications are to be had right now; I don't understand guns well enough to make such a claim. However, hypothetically, let's say legal magazine sizes were limited to 6 bullets, and that with extra time required to constantly load and unload, the shooters efficiency is reduced to killing only 19 instead of 20. We could run tests (mock drills and the like) to see if this is true. In the hypothetical case that we can save one life out of 20 by magazine restrictions, would magazine restrictions become an acceptable infringement?
You are quite the jokester.
Ah, great to know. We obviously need to ban all male penetration. Easy to enforce a sperm bank impregnation only law. We owe this to the children born with infectious diseases. We owe this to abuse victims. We owe this to unsuspecting young women in poverty stricken neighborhoods. It's for the children! Protect the children!
I get the feeling it's only those with sex fetishes who are against such common sense protection laws.
96% agree the world is not run by reptilians. What do I win?