Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[Dr Grump]

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.

Definitely morally acceptable....

To limit one, or both?

The first, not the second.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Point is many are saying the amount you buy shouldn't matter and should not raise an eyebrow. Which is why I'm wondering why I cannot buy my fertilizer and sudafed in large amounts. Once you answer the question Dave, you'll have the answer to why buying 6000 rounds should raise an eyebrow.

Is every farmer a terrorist suspect for buying large amounts of fertilizer?

No, but you can bet they've been checked out to make sure they're really farmers.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think there are plenty of Mall Ninjas and Keyboard Commandos who think that, if they were in the theater and armed, somehow they would be able to stop the shooter without harming anyone else.

That aside, has that every happened....somebody stopped a mass shooting?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Define "high capacity." Because it's easy to say "50 rounds is high capacity" but it might not be to some people.

If a law was enacted outright banning the use of "high capacity magazines" then all you need to do it change the definition of "high capacity" from 50 (or whatever that number is) to 1 and you've essentially outlawed the use of a gun.

If a lunatic can get hold of any gun and do something bad with it, it ultimately isn't going to matter too much whether or not he has a high capacity magazine or not. He'll still kill people in cold blood, it'll still be a tragedy and he'll still be the exception and not the rule.

A weapon holding more than 6 (SIX) rounds is high capacity. If you can't hit your prey (and I'm assuming the weapon will be designed and used exclusively for hunting) after six shots, you shouldn't be hunting, should you?

Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.

Because there might be 7 guys in my front yard trying to hurt my family, you ignorant fucking shitstain!

He's going to tell you how unlikely that is to happen, conveniently forgetting how often he and his leftist shitstain friends incite race riots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Colorado accused had many homemade hand grenades, all the firearms in the world would have been useless had his apartment blown as he planned. Some LE say it may have been a diversion, we will never know, as many LE risked their LIVES disarming the setup. Carry on with the tough guys typing routine y'all, and caress your .45 as you go to sleep tonight. Cop killer bullets are designed to do just that, and if you do not understand this, there are many, many graves to prove it for you.

Amazingly enough, cops are about as easy to kill as any other human being. You can do it with regular bullets.

By the way, so-called "cop killer bullets" were NOT "designed to do just that". Nor are there "many, many graves to prove it", since no cop has EVER been killed by so-called "cop killer bullets".

Stellar performance, as usual.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.

Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.

I didn't get an answer earlier:

This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?

No, it appears he went off his nut pretty quickly and all at once.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

Chances are they have no clue what semi-automatic really means.....they are pissing themselves thinking it is the same as automatic.

I'm not even a gun aficionado, and I know that, however big the magazine, you still have to pull the trigger for each and every shot. You're not "spraying" anything. And you can do the individual-trigger-pull thing just about as quickly if you have to reload, particularly since the people would have taken cover after the initial shots, and you'd have to take time to find your shot at that point, anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would you put those two in the same category? Limiting weapons is very different than religious freedom. One is about destruction, the other is not.

You could say missiles and bombs instead of guns and try to make them not limited to be equal to freedom of religion as well.

At the time that guns were permitted by the constitution there were not AK 47's and repeating firearms that weren't meant for defending oneself and hunting.

One is about believing as you wish, and one is about protecting yourself and your loved ones from violence. Why WOULDN'T you put them in the same category? Our Constitutional Framers apparently did, which is why they're #1 and #2, right up there together in the same Bill of Rights.

What difference does it make what type of guns they are? And who says they weren't "meant for defending oneself"? I'm betting the soldiers who've had them issued to them would disagree strongly with THAT statement.

 

[DiamondDave]

More ammo for what purpose?

For long hunting trips.. for not reloading 5 times when you are in a shooting competition... for shooting as many squirrels as you can without having to reload... for taking out a hoard of 10 zombies... for taking out the 11 people that just broke in to your mansion... for making an uninterrupted smiley face on your paper target... for trying to fell a small sapling in 1 clip for shits and giggles... for putting 20 shots in a charging polar bear...

You want more??

And this is responsible gun ownership? This behavior leads to the bumper sticker mentality, diffusing arguments with catch phases like 'guns don't kill people'? I'm not sure you are the type of gun owner, after describing your irresponsible practices with fire arms, who should be arguing for anything remotely like more guns, more ammo in those guns and proper gun use and safety.

Yes it is reasonable... you may not think hunting is reasonable, or defending yourself.... we do...

 

[DiamondDave]

And yes, I do hunt with an AR, and my Saiga is right with me as well

Hunting in this area (the upper Ohio River Valley) is like skiing is in Vail. I've yet to meet anyone who would hunt with an AR-15. Most of the hunters here use shotguns (in Ohio for deer and turkey) or a 30.06 rifle for deer (In Pennsylvania and West Virginia for deer).

It seems they enjoy the venison. A tough thing to do if eight or twelve rounds has been pumped into the deer. Most hunters revel in dropping their quarry with one shot, not emptying a clip into their prey.

Lemme ask you a question, oh hunting guru. Any of your huntin' buddies, whose anecdotal hearsay evidence we're apparently supposed to make public policy on, ever miss their shot and have to track the animal down? Or do they just go hunting with one bullet for each animal they plan to take home?

 

[ClosedCaption]

And you get to determine someone's need? You want only 6 shots when your are defending yourself in an unknown situation?? You want to be hunting a bear or come across one while hunting and only have 6 shots available??

200 in a barrel clip, I might agree with you on high capacity... but if you enjoy going to the range and firing off that many on full auto on your tommy gun, so be it... but 6 is not high capacity, sorry Charlie

I need 5 tons of fertilizer and 40 bottles of Sudafed. Why cant I get them?

Just buy them the way Mr. Holmes bought his guns: gradually over time. I know you'd like to pretend he just logged onto Guns R Us and ordered the whole shebang in one go, but that's not the case.

Is there a law in place that would stop anyone from buying them all at once? Shit, I'm seeing people here actually arguing why even THAT would be ok...

 

[Katzndogz]

I think there are plenty of Mall Ninjas and Keyboard Commandos who think that, if they were in the theater and armed, somehow they would be able to stop the shooter without harming anyone else.

That aside, has that every happened....somebody stopped a mass shooting?

Yes. In Utah at a mall. An off duty cop carrying his weapon took out a shooter before he caused mass casualties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

 

[thanatos144]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

No, we're under the knowledge that reloading takes time away from shooting that not reloading doesn't.

How can you exist, being that stupid?

I can reload my 30/06 in less time then it takes you to run a hundred feet and it hold 5 rounds in its clip. I.can also lead a revolver in the time it takes to reload a magazine with my speed loader. Who do you think your kidding? You have no Fucking clue about what your talking about.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think there are plenty of Mall Ninjas and Keyboard Commandos who think that, if they were in the theater and armed, somehow they would be able to stop the shooter without harming anyone else.

That aside, has that every happened....somebody stopped a mass shooting?

Yes. In Utah at a mall. An off duty cop carrying his weapon took out a shooter before he caused mass casualties.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY]Bonnie Tyler - I Need a Hero (Lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

Ol Bonnie Taylor face ass

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

We already limit what weopons you can legally own. Therefore, it is not a legal problem banning large capacity magazines. The precedent has been established and approved by a Supreme Court decision.

The only question now is whether enough people will buck the NRA in order to pass that law.

 

[thanatos144]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

 

[Navy1960]

After reading a lot of the comments in this thread, I thought it worth mentioning a few things, first is the "right" to keep and bear arms, has become focused on the weapons themselves and not the reasoning for that right.

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes,

deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a long and well established principle that the "right" to bear arms is given under the constitution more so that the people of this nation may have some final control of their own destinys and act as a check and balance from a Govt. that may act in contravention from their wishes as well as those mentioned above. The weapons themselves are mere tools and have changed greatly since the time the constitution was founded. However, most will agree that these "rights" are not unlimted, in that in most states, there is existing gun control. In fact, the very act of a background check is a method of gun control. To seek though to limit arms to the those Americans that should enjoy them under the constitution is to punish those who have commited no crime other than purchase a tool by which others have an objection too. While it's true that some weapons are limited and I tend to think that through some common sense legislation weapons like the AR-15 and the AK-47, can also be legislated without the need to infringe upon the rights of those law abiding Americans who have done nothing more than exercise the "right" to keep and bear arms.

Our nations founders took this Amendment as seriously as any other, Jefferson, Madison take your pick and as such unless this nation seeks to Amend the 2nd Amendment which we all fully entitled to do, then it should be respected as much as any other.

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

One last thing on the issue of regulating Arms themselves,

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is, to use a tragic event to take away a "right" serves no useful purpose because it does generally it is done so in haste and often times the measures themselves punish those for crimes they do not commit nor ever will. I suggest for the tragic events in CO. we focus on the victims here, and advocate for punishing the real Subject here rather than Americans who grieve with them. Then perhaps, we can focus on legislation that might perhaps take into consideration everyones feelings on the matter.

 

[DiamondDave]

I think I am gonna buy an old Sherman tank

 

[Nosmo King]

Ever notice it is never about more freedom with progressives??? It is always about less freedom unless it is about molesting kids or killing babies.

When and where has the Right Wing been in the avant garde concerning rights? Worker protection? Tell me why the Right has done everything to restrict worker's rights and protections. Environmental stewardship? The Right wouldn't mind more pollution if it enhanced a corporate bottom line, in spite of the consequences. Civil rights? Unless you want us all to believe George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and Sheriff "Bull" Connor were all tie-dyed kumbaya singing Liberals, you have a tough sell. Women's rights? I suppose Phyllis Shlaffly was a paid operator on the Left simply muddying up the argument for the ERA. Gay rights? C'mon! Where's the Conservative support for that?

Face it, the Conservative movement is all about repression. Consistently on the wrong side of the historical curve, driving forty in the passing lane with the turn signal stuck on.