|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Ending shipments of guns into San Francisco will lower illegal gun sales initially, as many guns that end up on the black market come from reputable sources (gun corporations). It is probable that Gun runners will see a quick boom in buisness. Of course, San Francisco has the somewhat unique position among places that have banned guns of being on a pinnunsla, which means that either the runners will have to use boats, or they will have to try and get in the guns via the various roadways (hwy 101, 280, etc.). This will become problematic, as gunrunners usually have police records, and often sell from stolen vehicles. In a city like San Francisco, which has an obscene amount of police presence on the major highways, it will be extremly difficult for the average gun runner to move goods into the city. I've also heard rumors that rewards for information about illegal gun sales will be announced within the next few months, making squeeling a very profitable and fesable action. The city of San Francisco is taking every step possible to avoid a repeat of what happened in Washington D.C. As I've stated before, San Francisco already has one advantage over D.C.: it is not right next door to a county that has extrtemly lax gun laws. West Virginia has been a bain for the D.C. gun ban, theoritically supplying over half of all guns in D.C. San Francisco is surrounded by California waters, and several counties, all that already have fairly strict gun laws.
|
I guess we should follow the example that the government uses in the war on drugs for this? Whatever attempt you make at cutting off the supply, those who want them will get them. If you built a 30 foot wall around the city of San Fran, they would dig a tunnel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is a dangerous topic, because the supreme court has had several different interpretations since the Amendment was ratified. Several justices have sided with my thoughts, in that the second amendment is intended as a guerentee that the government shall remain democratic, and that any force, foreign or domestic, cannot enslave or take the rights from the citizens of the US. This is supported by the mention of the militia, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service or an army composed of civilians rather than professional soldiers. Other justices support your claim that this means that among the inaliable rights, such as freedom of speech, press, and religion, is the right to bear arms. The line of logic originally was to defend the populace from an oppressive government, but umbrellas out over self protection as well. Who's right? I'm not qualified to say, and I suspect that very few people are (none of whome are alive). This will have to remain unresolved, at least in my mind.
|
Simply reading the notes and quotations from the writers of the constitution should make it clear that it is intended as an individual right.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I don't equate the danger posed by a gun to the danger posed by a katana, speaking as someone who is familiar with the idea of range, speed, acuracy, and mortality rate. There is simply no parallel between these two weapons in this argument. The gun ban will, only if successful, begin and end with firearms. Even an expert marksman with a bow or crossbow cannot match someone with a gun.
|
This argument alone should convince you that guns are a necessary part of self defense. Do you expect my 84 year old grandmother to wield a katana against a home invader? Or would you prefer that the homeowner first take stock of any weapon that an invader has and then duel them honorably?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I am not against extreemly harsh sentences (ironically, I would support cainings and such as punitive measures in dealing with perpetraitors of violent crimes)
|
not harsh enough, in my opinion. If you want to get tough on gun crime, start using the death penalty for it. If a criminal uses a gun during a crime and a person is killed or wounded during the commission of that crime, we'll see you strapped to a gurney with a needle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
It's not as simple as calling a gun a tool that is for both defence, and killing.
|
Sure it is. Lets look at some common everyday items. A meat cleaver is used in the kitchen. It's a tool to help prepare a family dinner or for a butcher in his daily work life, but it has the capacity to kill when used in the wrong hands. Look at fertilizer? It's used to help farm crops grow to provide food to a large group of people, yet in the wrong hands can be used to blow up a federal building. A baseball bat is used in the sport of baseball, yet in the wrong hands can kill. There are lots of tools used in our lives that can kill, its how you use it that counts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'd like to examine the defensive capabilities of the gun for a moment. I remember my old football coach telling our team, "The best defence is a good offence". It's a mericle we ever won, but anyway...Even as a defensive 'tool', the gun is still at it's core an offensive weapon. The primary defensive use of a gun is not to deflect an attack, but to counter it. At it's best, the only defensive function of a gun is prevention and that can be said of any weapon. As I stated in the other thread, why buy a weapon instead of taking truely defensive measures? I have security doors on my house. I have triple pain glass which is more difficult to break. I lock the doors every night before I go to sleep. I even considered getting an alarm installed. Guns are hardly the only choice of someone wishing to defend his or her family.
|
I have in laws that live in Dallas. One, a 30 something flight attendant, went to the grocery store one night around 8:30. Before she could make it in to the store she was accosted, from the front, punched in the face, kicked in the stomach, had her purse stolen and then her car. Now, in this situation we could talk all about hypotheticals like not enough time to react anyway, if he'd wanted to kill her he would have anyway, and even taking her weapon away and using it on her. All of it doesn't matter. It only matters that a person have whatever means necessary to provide for their defense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
In an ideal world, one could cut off the supply. We don't live in that world, so the voting citizens, such as myslef, are trying desperatly to do whatever we can. If the experiment fails, then it will be a tragedy and we will have to take other syeps to try and reduce gun violence. If, by some chance, it is a success, then we can act as a model to other places that might have a rising gun violence problem. We'll have to wait and see.
|
Learn from history. Cutting off the supply does not work. It hasn't worked in the war on drugs, has it? You have to stop it at its focal point.....the criminal. There is no other way.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|