There is also a world a difference between having the right to purchase a legal product and having the right to have that product be legal, which you have so humorously confused. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee 30-round magazines will be legal.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
There is also a world a difference between having the right to purchase a legal product and having the right to have that product be legal, which you have so humorously confused. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee 30-round magazines will be legal.
One Brow;536833[B said:
Stop being dumb. Our rights are not rights to services nor are they obligations on businesses to provide specific products or services. I specifically said I can't demand the Times provide me with a Sunday edition. What I did say is that if the government (the organization capable of violating an individual's rights) passed a law limiting the size of a printed newspaper to one page there would be a possible 1st Amendment/freedom of speech issue.
You get this, right? We can move on now.
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.
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.
If no one sells them then no one sells them but they are still legal. Prohibiting them infringes on the 2nd Amendment no matter how much you wish it wasn't so.
Because I asked you about your opinion. I didn't ask you for numbers or evidence. Your opinion is based solely on your own standards and understanding. My standards have nothing to do with it. There is no wrong or right answer.
Can? Sure. Will? Well... context is everything. If you were able to completely disarm all citizens, it would certainly have an impact on the amount of gun crime that occurs. But that isn't even vaguely realistic. The problem is twofold: 1: There are just too many guns out there and most are not registered or otherwise readily identifiable. 2: The 2nd amendment. It explicitly grants the right to bear arms.
You seem to want to believe that we could become like Europe, as far as gun control is concerned (I assume this because you have no qualms using it as a comparison) but it won't happen. Europe is the way it is because that freedom has not existed. You cannot retro-fit the U.S. into that same model.
Freedoms come with responsibility. Those who act responsibly should not be threatened with losing their freedoms.
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.
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.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
You don't have a right to specific products anymore than you have a right to specific services.
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.
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.
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
A .9mm is a specific product and I have a right to own one.
Of course not.
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.
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.
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.
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