Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[tinydancer]

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.

I don't believe either are acceptable.

Let me give you an example of liberal touchy feely legislation that happened in Toronto. We have very tough hand gun legislation. The shootings that were occuring were centered around drugs and gang bangers.

The guns used in the commission of the crimes were illegal or legally registered but stolen by the criminals.

So the moronic liberal mayor at the time David Miller decided the way he could make the city of Toronto a safer place was to outlaw legal shooting ranges. Gun club ban on public property.

All members were legal gun owners and enthusiasts, but yuppers in all liberal brilliance the city council banned the legal gun ranges.

Has the gun violence stopped? Hell no. A block party was just shot up by gang bangers with two dead, many injured.

Such asswipes. And Miller was the biggest asswipe of them all.

City votes to ban gun clubs from public property

Some local gun clubs are now out of business after Toronto city council voted to ban them from operating on city property as part of a measure to keep streets safe from weapons.

A rifle club located inside a Scarborough community centre and a gun club at Union Station will now have to find a space to lease on private property in order to operate. Toronto Mayor David Miller said he supports the plan because of recent crimes that were committed using stolen legal guns.

Read more: City votes to ban gun clubs from public property | Toronto

 

[hortysir]

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

I linked it, but M14 didn't get the joke

 

[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

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

Where did you learn how to insult from Dumbass Insulting?

 

[Clementine]

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.

Law abiding citizens have rights to own guns and practice their religion. No one should even attempt to mess with either right.

There are circumstances when a person should not have a gun, ie. mental illness or history of violence. There are circumstances when some religions go over the line. Muslims not allowing women any rights, for instance. If they are in their own country, where their religion and law are one and the same, then they can treat women horribly, but if they are in our country, then our laws protect women from that, so it's not legal.

If you live here or are visiting here, abide by all laws or face the music. I don't think any unstable person should be able to legally obtain weapons and I don't think any religious laws should ever trump our laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I take it this is directed at people who wanted the so-called ground zero mosque banned, but who also oppose practically any sort of gun control.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

 

[Dot Com]

does this guy have a lifetime membership to the nra? Its ALL he posts about. The nra loves guys like him so they keep saying the skies gonna fall so he sends them more $

 

[buckeye45_73]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

no we should ban fertilizer, it could be used incorrectly.....and that should NEVER happen,

 

[hortysir]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

no we should ban fertilizer, it could be used incorrectly.....and that should NEVER happen,

Franko and Lakookoo provide enough bullshit for the world

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every time we get a rampage killing, we hear how we need to outlaw guns in order to prevent such violence and horror. Let's be realistic, shall we? The problem is NOT THE GUN. The problem is the person who decides, for whatever reason, to make a statement about the world or his life or whatever by slaughtering people in job lots, and those people are not going to stop existing and acting out just because you limit their choice of tools.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - killed 168 people
Julio Gonzalez - killed 87 people
Andrew Kehoe - killed 45 people
Jack Gilbert Graham - killed 44 people
Humberto de la Torre - killed 25 people

Aside from being American mass murderers, do you know what all the people on this list have in common? They committed their mass murders without shooting anyone.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Yeah, I hate ALL that shit. It's ridiculous and doesn't make anyone any safer.

 

[uscitizen]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

I just ordered 10 tons for delivery this fall.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Uh we all hated teh bottles shit, it was liberals who loved it, all so they didnt have to profile, which is easier, smarter, and doesnt take everyone's freedom.

 

[uscitizen]

Hey isn't rep covered in the constitution?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

I just ordered 10 tons for delivery this fall.

it's cool, you have the right to privacy and all that stuff

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.

You forgot to ask what we think dead children are worth.



Damn disgusting rw's.

 

[uscitizen]

.

You forgot to ask what we think dead children are worth.



Damn disgusting rw's.

They are worth whatever it takes to keep the Military Industrial Complex alive it seems.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Does the right to privacy apply to me if I want to buy 3 tons of fertilizer?

I just ordered 10 tons for delivery this fall.

it's cool, you have the right to privacy and all that stuff

Don't forget, you can't buy all the Sudafed you want cuz you just might be, well, you know ... planning something.

BUT, you can buy huge ammo magazines and tear gas and assault weapons for the next time you go to the movies.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Yeah, I hate ALL that shit. It's ridiculous and doesn't make anyone any safer.

Prove it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

You guys are always such cowards.

You didn't ask a question and the poll is loaded.
Why not try a real poll with real questions? Or are you too scared?