Please insure your 2nd amendment rights!

And the part you missed:
He doesnt want to criminalize the behavior - he wants to take away the right simply because the people are 'negligent'.

Did YOU read the post?

And I am saying that his approach can still work, but you would need to establish some guidelines for what constitutes unsafe and irresponsible behavior sufficient to restrict an individual. I am absolutely sure that MK wouldn't disagree with that statement. I am pretty sure he doesn't want it purely subject based on his review of every case.
 
People do not lose their rights unless they commit a crime.
Its a little thing called Due Process. If I were you, I'd be happy its there.

Okay. I got it. Let’s make accidentally shooting someone a crime. If you commit too many traffic violations (I think that if you commit too many reckless driving incidents), your driving privileges get taken away. Commit too many dangerous accidents with a gun and your gun rights should get taken away. That would make people darn careful when they handle guns. The concerned father will think twice before shooting at a late night shadow as her daughter tries to sneak home from a date. The home owner will think twice as he sees a lost, confused, unarmed kid trying to find a party.

What do you think?
 
And I am saying that his approach can still work, but you would need to establish some guidelines for what constitutes unsafe and irresponsible behavior sufficient to restrict an individual.
You are talking about criminalizing what would othereise be simply unsafe behavior. He isn't. Being negligent, in and of itself, is sufficent cause, regardless of a law was broken or not.

He may not have said it -here- but he has elsewhere.
 
"The Bill of Rights is a separate question. It merely adds a whole other layer of complexity to anything we are discussing."

When comparing the privilage or driving with the RIGHT of gun ownership....


"At this point, I thought it best just to work with the issue at hand. It isn't a logical fallacy at all. Not all accidents can be prevented, but surely some vehicular accidents are prevented by rules of the road, coupled with police and judicial enforcement."

Can you clarify that a little better? SURELY some are prevented but every year people still die from transportation methods. Whose opinion do we end this slippery slope at before we get to Ban Station? Yours or Mine?



"Of course I can't name anything regulated to the point of absolute safety. But you can't regulate traffic on the roads to absolute safety either. That doesn't mean I don't want traffic laws. They many not guarantee anything, but they do make a difference."

Driving in Traffic isnt a specific right mentioned in the constitution. We allow traffic laws because driving is a privilage. Owning a gun is not merely a privilage. This is why I keep bringing up the bill of rights. My protected liberty is not worth your opinion about weather the non-guarentee of a regulation makes some kind of difference.




"Sorry, I didn't read it. To be honest, I really don't feel strongly about guns, one way or the other. It just isn't one of those things that interests me. I just happened to get caught up in this discussion."

It's too bad. People are quick to toss out a study that seems to back up their opinion in the abstract without considering why they get submitted for peer review in journals in the first place. Studies are not infallible and I was ready to pounce on that one..
 
Can you clarify that a little better? SURELY some are prevented but every year people still die from transportation methods. Whose opinion do we end this slippery slope at before we get to Ban Station? Yours or Mine?

The slippery slope argument is silly. There are lots of points on a curve at which one can rest. In fact, we are almost never on the ends of the spectrum.

Driving in Traffic isnt a specific right mentioned in the constitution. We allow traffic laws because driving is a privilage. Owning a gun is not merely a privilage. This is why I keep bringing up the bill of rights. My protected liberty is not worth your opinion about weather the non-guarentee of a regulation makes some kind of difference.

The 2nd Amendment question is important and I understand why you bring it up. It just isn't what we were talking about at that point. I am sure it will be the central topic of discussion on this board again very, very shortly. Probably today or tomorrow.
 
"The slippery slope argument is silly. There are lots of points on a curve at which one can rest. In fact, we are almost never on the ends of the spectrum."

again, whose point do we stop at then? mine or yours?

It's not silly if you can't answer that question.



"The 2nd Amendment question is important and I understand why you bring it up. It just isn't what we were talking about at that point. I am sure it will be the central topic of discussion on this board again very, very shortly. Probably today or tomorrow."


au contrare.. it's important because we've been comparing the privilage of driving with the right of gun ownership. The second amendment is why you are trying to compare apples to oranges. There is no right to drive. There is a right to own guns.
 
"The slippery slope argument is silly. There are lots of points on a curve at which one can rest. In fact, we are almost never on the ends of the spectrum."

again, whose point do we stop at then? mine or yours?

It's not silly if you can't answer that question.

We don't necessarily stop at mine or yours. I don't know where the stopping point should be exactly, but it is enough for me to say that I am comfortable neither at the top or the bottom of the slope.

au contrare.. it's important because we've been comparing the privilage of driving with the right of gun ownership. The second amendment is why you are trying to compare apples to oranges. There is no right to drive. There is a right to own guns.

It might be relevant to the issue. In fact, it is definitely relevant to the issue. It just isn't what we were talking about. In fact, I think I made that point explicitly shortly after M14 and I started discussing the issue. Relevant - just not what we were discussing.

The right/privilege argument would require a whole different discussion. A worthy discussion, just not one I have the energy to undertake right now.
 
"The slippery slope argument is silly. There are lots of points on a curve at which one can rest. In fact, we are almost never on the ends of the spectrum."

again, whose point do we stop at then? mine or yours?

It's not silly if you can't answer that question.


"The 2nd Amendment question is important and I understand why you bring it up. It just isn't what we were talking about at that point. I am sure it will be the central topic of discussion on this board again very, very shortly. Probably today or tomorrow."

The slippery slope (and its close relative “the domino theory”) argument is a fallacy. It suggests that issues should fall under the category of “all or nothing”. There are really few absolutes. Look at smoking. We allow people to smoke tobacco but not marijuana. We might allow people to smoke marijuana but I don’t see the US government allowing people to consume cocaine or heroin any time soon. We allow people to drive 55 miles-per-hour. Why not set the speed limit to 60, 80, 120 miles per hour. Okay. 55 miles-per-hour is dangerous. Let’s reduce it to 40 or 30 or 20 miles-per-hour.

Then there is the old gun debate. I’m against limiting people to only owning 1 single-barrel shotgun, but I don’t think that each person should be allowed to own 50 fully-automatic machine guns either.

The issue is not “Do we draw a line?” It comes down to where we draw the line and that is determined pretty much by consensus – while we keep in mind that consensus can be wrong.
 
The slippery slope (and its close relative “the domino theory”) argument is a fallacy. It suggests that issues should fall under the category of “all or nothing”. There are really few absolutes. Look at smoking. We allow people to smoke tobacco but not marijuana. We might allow people to smoke marijuana but I don’t see the US government allowing people to consume cocaine or heroin any time soon. We allow people to drive 55 miles-per-hour. Why not set the speed limit to 60, 80, 120 miles per hour. Okay. 55 miles-per-hour is dangerous. Let’s reduce it to 40 or 30 or 20 miles-per-hour.

Then there is the old gun debate. I’m against limiting people to only owning 1 single-barrel shotgun, but I don’t think that each person should be allowed to own 50 fully-automatic machine guns either.

The issue is not “Do we draw a line?” It comes down to where we draw the line and that is determined pretty much by consensus – while we keep in mind that consensus can be wrong.

and I'm wholeheartedly FOR legalization of pot... but that doesn't mute the protected rights of our bill of rights. If you don't like the broad application of enumerated rights then get your grassroot effort on. If the second amendment specifically said that we are allowed to consume drugs then we'd all be some (open) drug using suckers. I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the sake of your rhetoric.

you bring up driving again.. funny, I thought we covered the fact that driving is a privilage while owning guns is a constitutional right.


Your last paragraph illustrates exactly my concern of the slope... if YOU can't pinpoint where to draw the line then whose opinion gets to? This is why we vote and amend the constitution. If you don't like the second then work to get rid of it. Otherwise, your OPINION is Y Pluribus Unum and is, in no way, a standard by which our constitutional rights should yield.


logical fallacy my ass. I'll remember that when election time rolls around and the topic of protest zones come up again... Or, I daresay, Bush's wiretapping. Hell, let's get litigious about self incrimination too!
 
I have read all the posts here and there are some very entertaining arguements on all sides...here is my point for the thread start...
Right now is a crucial time for the 2nd amendment with the upcomming elections. If we do not vote accordingly, they will be changed. I for one do not like that idea and to help for the right to leave the 2nd amendment alone I am a member of the N.R.A. Anyone who really cares for the 2nd amendment should join the N.R.A. and tell everyone they know to join. The N.R.A. has the power and the ability to be a powerful entity during elections. It would also be a good idea to know who is pro 2nd amendment and who isn't.
As for all that other chatter about cars and suicide and homicide...Whatever!
I got guns...Nice big guns...semi auto 308's, 45 glocks etc. Have owned guns for 30 years...never shot myself or anyone else, and if someone comes in my home in the middle of the night while I am sleeping, I'm going to blow his head off and laugh. Then call 911 to come clean up the mess. I want to keep my guns and my right to protect my home and family. So please join and tell your friends and family and research who is for and who is against.I know this much...If you like your guns and the 2nd amendment, you better pray that Hillarious Clinton doesn't get in.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top