Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[iamshack]

i didn't realize closer and closer meant the same thing as actually BEING intent.

When did I say that any of these things were the exact same thing?

 

I'm just bringing up other analogous products.

 

a·nal·o·gous

/əˈnaləgəs/

 

Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

[Reddy]

When did I say that any of these things were the exact same thing?

 

I'm just bringing up other analogous products.

 

a·nal·o·gous

/əˈnaləgəs/

 

Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

yes, they're analogous in the sense that a car can kill 30 people and so can a gun (though a single car killing 30 people seems a bit far fetched), but that's where it STOPS because the fact that one is *almost* intentional and one IS intentional means that they're not completely similar, and thus one can't be used to define the other!

 

I just don't see the logic you're using.

 

 

[iamshack]

yes, they're analogous in the sense that a car can kill 30 people and so can a gun (though a single car killing 30 people seems a bit far fetched), but that's where it STOPS because the fact that one is *almost* intentional and one IS intentional means that they're not completely similar, and thus one can't be used to define the other!

 

I just don't see the logic you're using.

No. They are analogous in that if you use them as they are intended to be used, they drastically increase the odds of harm occurring, even without intent.

[iamshack]

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

 

An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults

 

[ptatc]

My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread:

 

"*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?"

 

Tell me what's unreasonable about this.

All of those currently exist except for the psych evaluation. The only guns not on a registry would be inherited ones. The pych eval is an interesting idea.

 

None of those restrictions would prevent most gun violence. Take the case in Conn. None of that would have prevented it. The guns weren't his and his mother by all accounts would have/did meet all of those restrictions.

 

It was the careless handling/storage of the weapons by the mother that allowed this to happen and I don't know what you can do about that, short of what others have said on this about getting rid of most weapons. This is an unreasonable one.

[BigSqwert]

No. They are analogous in that if you use them as they are intended to be used, they drastically increase the odds of harm occurring, even without intent.

If you make a list of the pros and cons of allowing cars in society and allowing guns, the pros for cars would be exponentially higher. As strangesox pointed out the other day, you remove cars from society and the world we know right now would be drastically altered for the worse. Guns, IMO, are a nice to have and utterly unnecessary. That's why we put up with the deaths caused by accidents.

 

Also, cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all.

[ptatc]

If you make a list of the pros and cons of allowing cars in society and allowing guns, the pros for cars would be exponentially higher. As strangesox pointed out the other day, you remove cars from society and the world we know right now would be drastically altered for the worse. Guns, IMO, are a nice to have and utterly unnecessary. That's why we put up with the deaths caused by accidents.

 

Also, cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all.

This is the difference. You are forcing your opinion on others and want the government to enforce it. There are many productive uses for guns. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the government should restrict it.

[BigSqwert]

This is the difference. You are forcing your opinion on others and want the government to enforce it. There are many productive uses for guns. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the government should restrict it.

Many? If guns went away, what would the true impact be to society? Compare that to taking cars away. Huge difference and you know it.

[iamshack]

If you make a list of the pros and cons of allowing cars in society and allowing guns, the pros for cars would be exponentially higher. As strangesox pointed out the other day, you remove cars from society and the world we know right now would be drastically altered for the worse. Guns, IMO, are a nice to have and utterly unnecessary. That's why we put up with the deaths caused by accidents.

 

Also, cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all.

I'm not looping cars into the list of analogous products. Cars happen to be an extension of that, due to the fact that many people choose to operate them under the influence of intoxicants/narcotics.

 

Alcohol/narcotics/cigarettes/guns are all fairly similar products to me. If utilized as the manufacturer intended, the odds for harm to innocent people rises dramatically.

 

Reddy is pointing out that guns are intentionally used to harm people, whereas the others usually are not. While this may be true, if I am intentionally impairing myself to the point where I am no longer in control of myself, it does not simply excuse liability for my actions. And if I continually and habitually put myself in this position, it rises damn near intent.

 

Additionally, I would guess that many intentional deaths due to guns are also carried out by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time.

[iamshack]

Many? If guns went away, what would the true impact be to society? Compare that to taking cars away. Huge difference and you know it.

What would be the impact to society if cigarettes went away? Alcohol? Narcotics?

[BigSqwert]

What would be the impact to society if cigarettes went away? Alcohol? Narcotics?

I couldn't care less if those went away. Same with guns.

[iamshack]

I couldn't care less if those went away. Same with guns.

And yet we continue to tolerate their existence in society. Same with guns.

[ptatc]

Many? If guns went away, what would the true impact be to society? Compare that to taking cars away. Huge difference and you know it.

Compared to cars and other motor vehicles, yes. But I wasn't comparing the two. My point was that just because you don't value guns or use them doesn't mean that others don't. I just stated that guns have productive uses and aren't "utterly useless" to everyone. Not having guns would impact the society that I live in. I use them for many practical purposes.

[Reddy]

Compared to cars and other motor vehicles, yes. But I wasn't comparing the two. My point was that just because you don't value guns or use them doesn't mean that others don't. I just stated that guns have productive uses and aren't "utterly useless" to everyone. Not having guns would impact the society that I live in. I use them for many practical purposes.

Like what? I'm sure guns are just as necessary as your car...

[Quin]

I don't use my guns to kill people.

 

Try again.

 

You said that I don't want the government to ban alcohol because I drink and like it. I don't drink.

 

You do however own a gun and don't want the government to ban it (if it's an assault rifle/automatic gun, which was the comparison) because you like having it.

 

So no, your comeback was kind of pointless.

[ptatc]

Like what? I'm sure guns are just as necessary as your car...

Protecting the chickens from the coyotes. Keeping the ground squirrels, rats and other rodents from the crops. And I never compared it to a car (reading is a skill) I merely said guns have practical uses and aren't "utterly useless."

[DukeNukeEm]

You said that I don't want the government to ban alcohol because I drink and like it. I don't drink.

 

You do however own a gun and don't want the government to ban it (if it's an assault rifle/automatic gun, which was the comparison) because you like having it.

 

So no, your comeback was kind of pointless.

Actually by saying you dont drink you're also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of drinking". When I say I have firearms, but dont commit crimes with them I'm also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of gun rights".

[Quin]

Actually by saying you dont drink you're also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of drinking". When I say I have firearms, but dont commit crimes with them I'm also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of gun rights".

 

No, by saying I don't drink I'm saying that your argument that "Quin doesn't want alcohol banned cause he and others drink" didn't work.

[caulfield12]

by LZ Granderson

 

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- I wish I were surprised that Texas Gov. Rick Perry doesn't see a problem with concealed weapons in schools, but after watching his failed bid for the presidency, the truth is there's very little that man can say that will truly surprise me.

 

"If you have been duly back-grounded and trained and you are a concealed handgun license-carrying individual, you should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state," Perry said at a tea party event held on Monday.

 

It seems his line of reasoning is in line with some of his gun-loving brethren who believe if teachers and principals are armed, tragedies like the one in Newtown would go away.

 

It's as if he thinks "Rambo" is a documentary.

 

In a country with fewer than 350 million people but more than 310 million guns, we don't need more of them. We need fewer. And when it comes to our schools, we don't need guns at all.

 

So it's very fortunate that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder had the good sense to veto Michigan Senate Bill 59 on Tuesday. The proposed law would have allowed people with permits to carry concealed weapons and with extra training, to bring their guns to traditional "gun-free" zones such as day care centers and schools. And by "extra training," the bill called for an additional eight hours and another 94 rounds on the firing range.

 

That's it.

 

It was approved the day before the shootings in Newtown.

 

On Monday -- while Perry was encouraging guns in schools -- a letter signed by all 21 superintendents in my county was sent to Gov. Snyder asking him to veto the bill because, unlike the gun-happy politicians who rammed the legislation through in a lame duck session, educators do not believe guns in schools are a good thing.

 

I have yet to hear a teacher who has survived a massacre advocate for guns in schools. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers -- with its 1.5 million members -- also sent a letter to Snyder opposing the bill, saying, "We should be doing everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property."

 

School allows teachers to carry guns In moments of stress, typically the first thing to erode is our motor skills. So the argument that educators should be ready to dodge gunfire, avoid hitting students and take out a gunman so someone hundreds of miles away can buy military-grade weapons and ammunition for kicks is a very stupid argument to make. And yet, we heard elements of that reasoning soon after the movie theater killings in Aurora, Colorado. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert asked: "It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"

 

Yes, Gohmert -- because what a dark room filled with tear gas and panicked people needs is more guns.

 

That makes as much sense as the lawmakers in Florida allowing concealed weapons in the state Capitol building in Tallahassee -- and then needing to install alert buttons on the phones of every senator and staffer in case someone came in and started shooting up the place with one of those concealed weapons.

 

Gov. Snyder needed to veto SB 59, not because the mood of the country has shifted because of the Newtown tragedy, but because it was bad legislation to begin with. We don't need -- and most educators don't want -- guns in schools.

 

I said most because David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold school district in Texas, where employees have been allowed to carry guns in schools since 2008, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Nothing is 100%. But what we do know is that we've done all we can to protect our children."

 

Also, on "Meet the Press," former Secretary of Education William Bennett said, "I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing. ... It has to be someone who's trained, responsible. But, my God, if you can prevent this kind of thing, I think you ought to."

 

Bennett: The case for gun rights is stronger than you think

 

Let's think about this: In August, nine bystanders in New York were wounded as a result of police gunfire -- the police were trying to arrest a suspect connected with another shooting. In September, police in Houston shot and killed a double amputee in a wheelchair who was trying to stab an officer -- with a pen.

 

Back in 2009, in Perry's state of Texas, a military doctor opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post, killing 13 and wounding 30 others.

 

The victims were all professionals, surrounded by guns, and trained to handle -- in Bennett's words -- "this kind of thing." Why would anyone think teachers and principals could take a couple of weekend classes and do better than them?

 

It just doesn't make sense. Having police patrol the area during school hours is fine. But allowing guns in school is simply counterintuitive to the kind of civilized society we want to live in and represent to the rest of the world.

 

Did you know, in addition to schools and day care centers, SB 59 would've allowed guns in hospitals, stadiums and churches?

 

I'm not anti-gun -- I have one in my house. But I ask you: What kind of people feel the need to have a gun with them in church? I'll tell you what kind: The kind who probably shouldn't have one in the first place.

Edited December 20, 2012 by caulfield12

[DukeNukeEm]

My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread:

 

"*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?"

 

Tell me what's unreasonable about this.

I've mentioned this earlier,

 

You can do whatever you damn well please with a car on your own property. Dont even need to have a license, if you own enough land you can get absolutely drunk off your tits and drive your car around like a banshee. You can even build something that gets 10 gallons to the mile and farts out the emissions of a 747. Its your machine, its your property and you can do whatever you want with it on your property. Public roads are where you have to start playing by rules.

 

Why cant we say the same about guns? Let's say I own an M249 (SAW LMG, you've seen them in movies). What's wrong with me owning it if I keep it on my property? Why do you f***ing care? You say "Oh, well this and that type weapon should be BANNED" because it has scary names like assault weapon (not even a real thing really) and semi-automatic. And then everything else should be kept track of by the government, even if we never take them out in public. So why the difference? What changes?

 

I'm guessing its just because today we have no respect for property rights. I mean, the government never really has (and never really will), but when people themselves start calling for it you know were in trouble.

[DukeNukeEm]

I dont give a f*** what teachers want or dont want in the classroom, stopped giving a s*** about them when they all walked out on their jobs in Chicago because they weren't going to get a big enough raise.

 

They're beholden to us, the taxpayer, we sign their checks and we chose what goes down in their schools. If they dont like it they can quit and work somewhere else like the rest of us when forces outside our control make our lives miserable at work.

[caulfield12]

I've mentioned this earlier,

 

You can do whatever you damn well please with a car on your own property. Dont even need to have a license, if you own enough land you can get absolutely drunk off your tits and drive your car around like a banshee. You can even build something that gets 10 gallons to the mile and farts out the emissions of a 747. Its your machine, its your property and you can do whatever you want with it on your property. Public roads are where you have to start playing by rules.

 

Why cant we say the same about guns? Let's say I own an M249 (SAW LMG, you've seen them in movies). What's wrong with me owning it if I keep it on my property? Why do you f***ing care? You say "Oh, well this and that type weapon should be BANNED" because it has scary names like assault weapon (not even a real thing really) and semi-automatic. And then everything else should be kept track of by the government, even if we never take them out in public. So why the difference? What changes?

 

I'm guessing its just because today we have no respect for property rights. I mean, the government never really has (and never really will), but when people themselves start calling for it you know were in trouble.

 

Except you're forgetting the key point in this particular Newtown case. If the mother would have responsibly stored her weapons, since they were in her name and not her son's, then this whole situation might have been avoided.

 

In your example, the drunk driving is happening within your own property and not hurting anyone...there's no problem whatsoever with drinking yourself into a coma, it's when a drunken driver or rifles leave private property and are used on public/government land that the two lines of the Constitution intersect, between Federal and state/local/regional rights.

Edited December 20, 2012 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Except you're forgetting the key point in this particular Newtown case. If the mother would have responsibly stored her weapons, since they were in her name and not her son's, then this whole situation might have been avoided.

How do we know that she didn't?

 

A 20 year old can, in theory, responsibly learn to use a weapon on their own. If he walked into a Walmart, he could have purchased that gun. How do we know she didn't have them appropriately locked up and the kid knew the combination?

 

And heck, in this thread, we've had more than a few people tell us how important it is to them to have their guns "Responsibly" unlocked, loaded, and ready to go in the case of the home invasion vigilante fantasy.

 

Based on the arguments of people in this thread, if those guns were in her closet, loaded, unlocked and ready to go...she'd still be having them stored "Responsibly", unless several people in here want to describe themselves as irresponsible.

 

Of course, in my view...the only way you're going to actually be responsible in a situation with a 20 year old with the type of mental issues discussed...is to not have them.

[southsider2k5]

give me one other product that can intentionally level 30 people in 60 seconds

 

Fertilizer.

[StrangeSox]

Don't they track large-quantity fertilizer purchases since OKC?