Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
This is a complete apples and oranges comparison. Porsche does not make their automobiles expensive because of numerous regulations. They put a price on their product by supply/demand/costs. the government makes products and services MORE expensive by taxes/regulations/controlling supply.
|
Fair enough. This could be a way of controling the flow of weapons to people with lower levels of disposable income.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
how about examples of the past? I've posted numerous examples, but that would never happen in america, would it?
|
My point is that it hasn't happened yet. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
why not? we let them drive, we let them get married?
|
If you're not considered by the law to be mature enough to drink alcohol, fight in a war, or vote for your representatives, then I don't see how they could be considered legally responsible enough to purchase a rifle or shotgun. If the aim is safety, then wouldn't you want them to have small arms anyway? A rifle or shotgun is hard to hide from a criminal (or anyone for that matter).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
A gun ban IS gun control by different means. They both are intended to keep guns out of civilian hands. One by restrictions on the person, the other by restriction of living in a municipality. Same effect.
|
Same effect does not mean same cause, and they don't even have the same effect. Gun control is set up to make sure that dangerous people can't get guns. Gun bans are set up to make sure no one gets guns. Those are two very different situations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
There is nothing common sense about making laws to keep guns out of violent felons hands and collecting non violent misdemeanors in the process.
|
I;ve read this 4 timees now and I think I need claraification. I think what you mean is that as far as gun control violent and nonviolent criminals should not be grouped together. I think that stalkers are just as dangerous with guns as gang members. They are both antisocial and could have the intent to use guns.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Then you're sorely lacking in experience and knowledge on domestic violence restraining orders. This even affects people who were inappropriately convicted for spanking their kids. It's a bad law to begin with and it's effects are even worse with sympathetic judges who issue restraining orders on the words of a vindictive spouse/significant other.
|
I have to go with the judicial system on this. If you are given a restraining order, then you are legally a danger or threat to someone. Someone who is a legal danger to someone else should not be given a firearm. I disagree with many court rulings, but they are legal. Gun control can't be on a case-by-case basis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I don't want violent felons to have guns. Somebody who makes a simple mistake in a victimless crime should not lose their constitutional rights.
|
We've already agreed to disagree on the constitutional legitimacy of the 'right to bear arms', so I'll leave this alone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
If you were a prisoner there, I'd say no. But in the really real world, you have to go out on a near daily basis, right? Again, A gun is NOT a magic shield, nor is a taser or mace, but it greatly increases your odds of survival. Guns are a tool to defend yourselves, much like a baseball bat is made to hit home runs. It's who uses it and how that makes the difference.
|
I'm not convinced that a gun greatly increases your odds for survival.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I've taken no offense by anything you've written in this thread. No apologies are necessary. If it seems adversarial, well, thats because it is. You say you aren't asking me to turn my gun in, technically thats true, but you also say that you think gun bans will work, you want to run for office to make those changes, so I make the natural assumption that you want me to turn my gun in.
|
I don't support gun bans. I hate guns and support gun control, but I don't support gun bans. I see no reason to take your gun from you. I see reason to better monitor the flow of weapons, but not the seizure of all guns from everyone. The reason I supported the San Fran gun ban (which rhymes) is because it was their decision. San Francisco voted on it, so it's theirs to deal with. It's not the place of you, me, or the NRA to say that their votes didn't count.
When I run for office, my first order of buisness would be environmental measures. Then I'd focus on traffic, then population growth control. Then I'd work on full disclosure of all city matters (to let the interested citizens have better understanding of what's going on in City Hall). Gun control is hardly a city matter. Even if it were, I wouldn't support a ban. I know how crazy our police are, and a bun gan would cause a civil war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
My intent is to teach and learn on the subject as well, maybe we're so ingrained in our beliefs that we will never come to terms.
|
I hope not. I hope that I am not so sure of my beliefs that I cannot be open minded. I suspect that our upbringings account for a great deal of our differences of opinion.