Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:18am PT
|
If we want shorter term significant steps to protect our children then I think it may be time to spend the money to secure our public school campuses, with fences, metal detectors and armed police presence. We do this for our fricken legislators and many government facilities. This is a path we can start on tomorrow with no constitutional obstacles. I would vote to spend my tax money this way even though it makes me cringe a little. I think it's a wise spend. Every public campus, everyone of them, and with real, trained police presense. Take the money out of the military and bullet trains and other similar nonsense to pay for it.
Not enough would agree to their tax money going for this, so both parties would just borrow more. Secondly, since the pro-gun lobby demands that any new gun control measures must be 100% effective, I demand no half measures for any school physical protection, with the resultant trillions in cost being covered by excise taxes on .223/5.56 ammo, all pistol and rifle magazines with >5 round capacity and all high velocity semi-auto rifles capable of using such magazines.
Alternatively, I propose re-instating the assault weapon ban with the following modifications: The "National militia recruitment act" would ban the sale or transfer of all high velocity semi-auto rifles with removable magazines or fixed magazines holding >5 rounds, and ban the sale or transfer of all magazines for such rifles. All existing rifles to be registered with the state National Guard for use in defense of the nation as needed. Annual registration renewal requires certification that owners have not been diagnosed with any inappropriate mental condition, prescribed any mind-altering drugs, and have not taken any legal or illegal mind-altering drugs. Active or former military or national guard members in good standing would be excluded from the purchase ban. Perhaps also, like Jury Duty, a random drawing of registered owners to attend two-week unpaid military training. Failure to attend or complete would void registration.
None of this should require constitutional changes either. The assault rifle ban withstood challenge and who could object to linking ownership of such weapons with defense of the nation? We register our property with the county, we register our eligibility to vote with the state, we register our birth with Social Security and our lives with Selective Service. We don't see these registration as limiting our rights, but as ensuring them.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:27am PT
|
Edward,
Those quotes are their opinions.
We can't even be sure these are their opinions. These were their arguments in support of some desired outcome. It would be like suggesting a defense lawyers argument of his client's innocence is proof of that innocence, or even proof that the lawyer believes in that innocence.
It's trivial to show that Jefferson didn't believe everything he wrote or said.
TE
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:29am PT
|
So did Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia.
How'd that work out?
Also, let's look at the effectiveness of our war on drugs. Who's to say a war on guns will be more successful.
These are simple and all too common logical fallacies. The oranges-and-apples comparison. The historical genocides in Russia, Germany, etc. are a bit more complex than the banning of guns. They are not directly comparable to Canada, Australia, and England today. If they were, then your argument is, what... that we can prevent a genocide in the US with our guns? It seems unlikely, eh.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:39am PT
|
Sketchy Out and Proud!
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:42am PT
|
Also, let's look at the effectiveness of our war on drugs. Who's to say a war on guns will be more successful.
Are you saying this is a logical fallacy, as well?
To clarify, my point is directed at a complete ban of all guns. With our porous border, it would be difficult to prevent gun smuggling.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 08:49am PT
|
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
 Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
interesting, that good old revered Jefferson thought that all men are created equal
except that he was like just about everyone back then, severely racist, and a slave owner
all men are created equal, except black men and women
and only white, male, landowners should be allowed to vote in this country
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 09:29am PT
|
Are you saying this is a logical fallacy, as well?
To clarify, my point is directed at a complete ban of all guns. With our porous border, it would be difficult to prevent gun smuggling
Consider the differences between guns and drugs.
1. Many drugs are physically addicting while no guns are so. Desperate addicts have an effect on the market and profitability of producing and selling drugs.
2. Drugs also differ in that a controlled drug can have legitimate use beyond its illegality for trade, e.g. opiates. Guns, if banned, would also have some legitimate use, e.g. law enforcement, but much less so. We would not be legally issuing the guns to the general population as we do with drugs. The drugs have immediate physical use. Guns might be needed for defense.
3. The value of drugs per pound (or measured in volume if you like, as in one container load, or one truck load) is much greater. Although the price of an AR-15 would rise with a ban it is unlikely to rise to the level of an equal amount, in weight or volume, of white powder drugs. Less profit, therefore less smuggling.
4. If we allow legal drugs there certainly are some negative consequences. But are they directly comparable to consequences of guns? It would be difficult to enter a shopping mall and immediately force a dozen people to take drugs and drop dead. So that is a big difference too.
5. The many different drugs and many different guns further confound the comparison. Which guns are we comparing to which drugs. True, we can compare all guns to all drugs but any regulation is unlikely to be so absolute. Some drugs and some guns would be allowable under some circumstances. That is a lot of variation.
I agree it would be difficult to prevent gun smuggling. But a ban would make it more difficult for a crazy person to obtain a gun. If a ban saved a life it would be worth it. So while there are some useful comparisons between drug and gun laws the differences are great enough that we must consider them without muddying the water.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 09:32am PT
|
but if I was a strict and literal Constitutionalist which I am not, I would have to believe that the Second Amendment written intention said nothing more than being able to quickly round up citizens in order to defeat any foreign invader like they just did with England
"the Second Amendment written intention said nothing more than being able to quickly round up citizens in order to defeat any foreign invader"
I think that is the gist of it.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2018 - 09:46am PT
|
Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the Constitution anymore. The 2nd Amendment as been coopted by the NRA, and is now the justification for unrestrained, gun related capitalism, fueled by intentional, irrational paranoia.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!