Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

=== EDIT===

Thus far, the only person to admit having a (typically liberal) double standard on this issue is Nosmo King:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tions-of-the-tiny-minority-7.html#post5684662

I added his response to the poll as he did not have the courage to do so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

Public policy based on extremes virtually always yields bad laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen.

You also dont have the intellectual honesty to adderess the question.
Get back to me when you do.

 

[hortysir]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/236327-five-reps-a-day.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/236327-five-reps-a-day.html

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

All you have is strawmen....Comparing gun rights to voter ID laws....where did you learn how to debate, Dumbass Debating?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

You have enough problems forming your own thoughts bucko You dont know what I believe because it's easier for you to cry with your butt in the air

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

Because 1) you're unlikely to prevent that small instance, and 2) trying to prevent a rarely-occurring tragedy by oppressing people's rights is like ridding a town of rats by dropping napalm.

Even if you could create an ideal world in which firearms didn't exist and never, ever would, it would do nothing to stop deranged, evil people from committing murder, or even mass murder. If you don't believe me, ask the victims of 9/11 how much good gun control laws did in protecting them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

You have enough problems forming your own thoughts bucko You dont know what I believe because it's easier for you to cry with your butt in the air

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen.

You also dont have the intellectual honesty to adderess the question.
Get back to me when you do.

I've already answered this question in another thread started by Paulitician...Search for it if you want. But thanks for the ...Intellectual Honesty

Whew boy...For voter fraud laws...against gun control laws and strangely enough your reasoning is the same for both but the outcomes are different.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

You have enough problems forming your own thoughts bucko You dont know what I believe because it's easier for you to cry with your butt in the air

And yet you not I have not answered a straight forward question. Go figure.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

 

[uscitizen]

I thought this thread was about the Rep Austerity program here at USMB.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Private Business is free to set any reasonable and legal restriction they chose on those that CHOSE to se their services. The Government and gun grabbers have n o reasonable or legal right to infringe on protected rights. And the fact you think they do but only in certain cases proves just how stupid you are.

 

[Desperado]

That is what the US is becoming. Laws are passed for the least common denominator.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

You are for taking away one right because a very tiny number of people might use it to commit a crime, while you are for protecting another right from any attempt to stop a similar number from commuting a crime. Pretty simple concept. And that is why you won't answer.

So you hated the fear and panic when the airlines banned liquids, or you hate the fact AMC is banning dress up at the movies right?

those knee jerk reactions where a-ok, but this, how dare anyone question guns.

Do you understand the difference between a private entity making decisions about what happens on their own property and the government making laws restricting Constitutional rights?

I think both decisions were misguided and silly, but within their rights and not a violation of mine. Gun control laws, on the other hand, are misguided, silly, AND a violation of my rights.