patrick.net

fsaekar says

And the pro-gun side rightly points out that substance regulation is a total failure. Drug war, Prohibition.

By this argument, you believe everyone should be free own a suitcase nuclear weapon. After all, all substance regulation is a total failure.

Utterly ridiculous.

fsaekar says

Fortunately, you recognize what tatupo70 doesn’t, for some reason: that a well-armed populace is the only populace with a chance of stopping a police state. Notice how he pits me (an individual) against the collective “government”. Indeed, an AK-47 cannot save you from a “government” but it thwarts the individuals breaking down your door. Now imagine if every door they break down will have an AK welcoming them. Makes it a little harder for the police state, huh? How hard is this…

So if I understand you correctly, you were born about 150 years too late. The wild west sounds like just your style.

On second thought--current day Somalia is pretty close too. Is that what you'd like the US to become?

tatupu70 says

fsaekar says

Fortunately, you recognize what tatupo70 doesn’t, for some reason: that a well-armed populace is the only populace with a chance of stopping a police state. Notice how he pits me (an individual) against the collective “government”. Indeed, an AK-47 cannot save you from a “government” but it thwarts the individuals breaking down your door. Now imagine if every door they break down will have an AK welcoming them. Makes it a little harder for the police state, huh? How hard is this…

So if I understand you correctly, you were born about 150 years too late. The wild west sounds like just your style.
On second thought–current day Somalia is pretty close too. Is that what you’d like the US to become?

Taputu I have to disagree with you. You have never lived and seen how a society almost overnight can turn into a police state. All it takes is a large enough economic crash.

You probably never had some ahole come to your business and tell you that you have to pay him security fee or your kids may not come back from school one day.

In Florida back in the days they had these problems where mafia literally ruled the state, there were shootings during the daylight. Than governor allowed to carry weapons. Mafia dropped off very very fast, because when they started shooting they got shot back at.

Horrible stuff like that happens even today, on a smaller scale than it was before. But it still does. And giving up guns just because we are forgetting what it can be like is very short sighted. Our society seems very cozy right now, most people are overly coddled. But reality of life hits very hard, I'd never give up a right to own guns, guns is what keeps a lot of people in check.

Police isn't going to protect me from a robbery, (they never stop a robbery in progress) they will show up 30 minutes after to collect my body if I don't own a gun. But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn't.

It sounds like the arguments for more gun control being discussed are based on personal preference. Some of us are fine with people in our society being able to own powerful assault weapons, and some aren't. I don't think anyone is arguing that simply making something legal means everyone will do it "Wow nuclear weapons are now legal for personal use, lets make a suitcase bomb." Obviously that scenario is ridiculous. Plenty of people own glocks and choose not to go on murderous rampages with them. Making a weapon legal or illegal would not have stopped what happened in Arizona. Guns are illegal in Mexico yet thousands of people have been gunned down there. More regulation just ensures good people will have a harder time getting something that bad people can quickly obtain.

We all have different opinions on what a perfect society should be, or what things we like or don't like, that's fine. The problem is when we want to "legislate" our opinions as mandates and force others to abide by them. A society that allows such activity will quickly find themselves bereft of all freedoms.

ChrisLosAngeles says

But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn’t.

A gun does not stop you from getting killed. It does not stop a bullet from entering your body.

An armed populace does not reduce crime.

tatupu70 says

ChrisLosAngeles says

But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn’t.

A gun does not stop you from getting killed. It does not stop a bullet from entering your body.
An armed populace does not reduce crime.

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

And I'm pretty sure that if my neighbor had a gun and a criminal knew of that fact he would at least not show up when he was home and shoot him. Its common sense, if there is a risk they will try to minimize it.

Another point to add. Illegal guns are pretty easy to get. If you are in military there are plenty of ways to send weapons home, there are other ways. If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

ChrisLosAngeles says

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

Maybe. Do you have any links to articles on it?

I've heard those arguments a thousand times that criminals are scared of people with guns. I invite you to walk the streets of South Chicago or East LA with a gun and see if that stops you from getting robbed. Pretty much everyone there has a gun--how has your theory about reducing crime panned out there?

ChrisLosAngeles says

If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

Again--having a gun won't stop you from being killed. All you'll do is die with a gun in your hands...

tatupu70 says

ChrisLosAngeles says

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

Maybe. Do you have any links to articles on it?
I’ve heard those arguments a thousand times that criminals are scared of people with guns. I invite you to walk the streets of South Chicago or East LA with a gun and see if that stops you from getting robbed. Pretty much everyone there has a gun–how has your theory about reducing crime panned out there?
ChrisLosAngeles says

If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

Again–having a gun won’t stop you from being killed. All you’ll do is die with a gun in your hands…

Taputu... gun wont stop me from getting killed perhaps, but it will reduce the chances significantly. You can't use all or nothing argument because that would be a fallacy... might as well not have police since they don't completely remove criminals if you use the same type of logic.

I don't know how it is in Chicago, I have heard that it is bad in many ways (and I think concealed carry is illegal). But in Florida it was exact opposite.

As far as link here is a google search link. Plenty of articles about it:
google: "florida crime rate solved with gun laws"
also google: "take your guns to work"

Bottom line is that if you take guns away from regular citizens who do not go through illegal hoops to obtain firearms you will disarm honest citizens leaving them vulnerable to criminals who will find ways to keep guns. Guns aren't the only solution to all the crime, but they do help in many situations and that cannot be disregarded.

NuttBoxer says

I don’t think anyone is arguing that simply making something legal means everyone will do it “Wow nuclear weapons are now legal for personal use, lets make a suitcase bomb.” Obviously that scenario is ridiculous. .

I have posted links (in this thread or another) showing how two high school students in 2003 built a nuclear reactor using nothing but spare parts and stuff purchased on Ebay. In the 1960s, the US military conducted a study and concluded it would take a couple of men about 30 months to construct a workable atom bomb.

This is not ridiculous.

Building a small nuclear warhead, capable of leveling a city block or two, is completely within the means plenty of people. The instructions and most of the equipment is available.

Why has this not happened? Prohibition Laws. The source material, enriched uranium, is illegal.

Gun Control opponents cannot answer this simple question - why doesn't the Second Amendment also give me the right to own a suitcase nuclear weapon?

They don't answer the question. They just call it 'ridiculous' and assert that 'no one' would ever want one.

Well, if my neighbor can own an automatic rifle with a high capacity clip, I want a small nuclear device capable of blowing up a couple city blocks. It would provide a strong deterrent against theives, mobsters, and tyrannical government officials.

I understand you are very into your scenario, but you missed the point. Like I said, making it legal to own/make such a weapon would not cause a stampede of people to the local power plant demanding uranium. You see, most people don't want to make nuclear bombs, whether they can or not. And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they'll do it regardless of the law.

Having a suitcase bomb isn't ridiculous because it can happen, but assuming the law is all that's holding us back from rushing to make one is.

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can't deny that.

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?

Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don't know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you're saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that's stopping them?

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?
Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

Personally, I do not desire to make an atomic bomb. But I'm pretty sure there are guys in Al Qaeda that do.

I think we need to balance public safety against personal freedom when we make laws. Like we already do. Or would you rather we not have drunk driving laws?

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?
Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

It has nothing to do with:

1) Whether or not I can I make a small nuclear bomb. If legalized, there are plenty of companies that could fill this niche and produce small nuclear bombs for buyers.

2) Whether their is current observable demand for the product or not. Was there a demand for Facebook in 1983? Who knows since it wasn't around. An aggressive company with a good marketing campaign could seed demand for suitcase nuclear bombs across the US. Hell, there may even be suitcase nuclear bomb collectors if legalized! Imagine owning ever smaller versions of these weapons of mass destruction in cool concept colors! Radio-active Green! Nuetronic Neon Yellow! You could probably get them shrunk down into building destroying iPod sizes once the Japanese started mass producing them. If you can't envision urban yuppies proudly showing off their suitcase nuclear bomb as a conversation piece during a wine and cheese party, you have no imagination.

High capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, folding stocks - there was no public demand for these prior to their marketing to the public.

You still haven't answered the question: Why doesn't the 2nd Amendment guarentee my right to bear nuclear arms if it guarentees high capacity magazines?

I should address the "if they do aspire to do it they will regardless of the law". Actually, this is empirically false, as no individual has ever obtained the necessary source materials to construct one. The illegality AND the enforcement of the laws, has prevented a daranged maniac from setting off a nuke in an American city.

And yes, we have blanket laws on 300 million Americans because 5 sickos want to crush baby animals with their bare feet and film it so they can masterbate to it. I have not lost a night of sleep over that particular loss of my liberties.

But the sole, let me repeat that SOLE responsible entity for the senseless violence that killed six people is Jared Loughner. No one and nothing else, just Jared Loughner.

But when a muslim wanted to build a community center in lower manhattan . . . Palin & friends were attacking the ever-loving shit out of him.

Now that the radical right is being hoisted on its own eliminationist petard, out come the appeals to moderation and fairness.

Blow it out your ass.

tatupu70 says

Personally, I do not desire to make an atomic bomb. But I’m pretty sure there are guys in Al Qaeda that do.
I think we need to balance public safety against personal freedom when we make laws. Like we already do. Or would you rather we not have drunk driving laws?

Ensuring personal freedom automatically guards public safety, the separation you're making doesn't exist. Our country was founded on the belief that all men had the right to be free, and not have their freedoms infringed upon. When Loughner shot those people he tried to take away their right to live. In a free society the rights of all must be respected. You can live your life how you want as long as you don't attempt to take others rights away.

What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

SoCal Renter says

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?

Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

It has nothing to do with:
1) Whether or not I can I make a small nuclear bomb. If legalized, there are plenty of companies that could fill this niche and produce small nuclear bombs for buyers.
2) Whether their is current observable demand for the product or not. Was there a demand for Facebook in 1983? Who knows since it wasn’t around. An aggressive company with a good marketing campaign could seed demand for suitcase nuclear bombs across the US. Hell, there may even be suitcase nuclear bomb collectors if legalized! Imagine owning ever smaller versions of these weapons of mass destruction in cool concept colors! Radio-active Green! Nuetronic Neon Yellow! You could probably get them shrunk down into building destroying iPod sizes once the Japanese started mass producing them. If you can’t envision urban yuppies proudly showing off their suitcase nuclear bomb as a conversation piece during a wine and cheese party, you have no imagination.
High capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, folding stocks - there was no public demand for these prior to their marketing to the public.
You still haven’t answered the question: Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment guarentee my right to bear nuclear arms if it guarentees high capacity magazines?
I should address the “if they do aspire to do it they will regardless of the law”. Actually, this is empirically false, as no individual has ever obtained the necessary source materials to construct one. The illegality AND the enforcement of the laws, has prevented a daranged maniac from setting off a nuke in an American city.
And yes, we have blanket laws on 300 million Americans because 5 sickos want to crush baby animals with their bare feet and film it so they can masterbate to it. I have not lost a night of sleep over that particular loss of my liberties.

It take alot of belief in a very sick, twisted society for you to think a massive market would exist for owning nukes just because they were legal. It's just not realistic. If rules are what stops people then why has half the country smoked pot? It's ILLEGAL, we should have access to it, right? Your scenarios are extreme and bear no comparison to people owning handguns.

And I don't understand that last part... No one has gotten the materials to make a nuke because it ILLEGAL, but you sited several examples where that's exactly what happened. Which is it?

NuttBoxer says

Ensuring personal freedom automatically guards public safety, the separation you’re making doesn’t exist. Our country was founded on the belief that all men had the right to be free, and not have their freedoms infringed upon. When Loughner shot those people he tried to take away their right to live. In a free society the rights of all must be respected. You can live your life how you want as long as you don’t attempt to take others rights away.
What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

No--the distinction exists. I guess you could call it "others rights" if you wish, but clearly one man's freedoms end when they infringe on the rights of society. The tricky part is deciding where that line is...

And that's my point. There IS a line somewhere so pretending that it's about taking away one's freedom or rights is silly. It's a way to cloud the issue and inflame people...

Like SoCal is saying--there are weapons that clearly should be illegal, so all the 2nd amendment stuff is garbage. The question is what should be legal vs. illegal.

NuttBoxer says

What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

No--actually that's not at all what I'm saying. Try again.

Troy says

But the sole, let me repeat that SOLE responsible entity for the senseless violence that killed six people is Jared Loughner. No one and nothing else, just Jared Loughner.
But when a muslim wanted to build a community center in lower manhattan . . . Palin & friends were attacking the ever-loving shit out of him.
Now that the radical right is being hoisted on its own eliminationist petard, out come the appeals to moderation and fairness.
Blow it out your ass.

You posted this because my beliefs represent the "radical right" correct? I think people should be able to build what they want on their property, and further that it would be somewhat fitting to build a Muslim temple at a false flag site used as reason to murder Arab children.

Try to pigeon hole that.

Better yet wake up to the fact that your caught up in a meaningless argument regarding two made up factions for the very purpose of accomplishing what you've just demonstrated. Fanaticism over bashing fellow Americans over the head instead of awareness that you're being robbed blind through taxes, mortgage fraud, and government regulations all implemented by the same people who made up your little "left/right" argument. It's rich vs poor, bankers vs citizens, government vs freedom, and we're all losing.

Blow that out your ass.

I understand Tatupu, you prefer the Minority Report world where the crime isn't the action, it's the thought(or is that 1984?). Possession is the crime for you, regardless of intentions. Simply owning a gun shows intent to kill. I prefer to judge people by what they've done, not what I "think" they might do.

This country wouldn't exist without the 2nd Amendment, it was made by the citizens to protect against the Constitution and government abuse. Hardly garbage.

NuttBoxer says

I understand Tatupu, you prefer the Minority Report world where the crime isn’t the action, it’s the thought(or is that 1984?). Possession is the crime for you, regardless of intentions. Simply owning a gun shows intent to kill. I prefer to judge people by what they’ve done, not what I “think” they might do.
This country wouldn’t exist without the 2nd Amendment, it was made by the citizens to protect against the Constitution and government abuse. Hardly garbage.

Wow--I didn't think it would be possible to completely misunderstand to that degree. So, your plan is not to actually address my points, but to make up what you wish I had said and then answer that? I think the term strawman applies here...

NuttBoxer says

And I don’t understand that last part… No one has gotten the materials to make a nuke because it ILLEGAL, but you sited several examples where that’s exactly what happened. Which is it?

You claim we live in some utopian society where everyone behaves if they are just given enough freedom. Sadly this isn't the case. Congress had to make a law banning "Crush" videos.

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/12/crush_bill_signed_120910.html

WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States lauded President Obama for signing into law H.R. 5566, the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. The statute immediately bans the creation and distribution of obscene animal torture videos that show the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating and impaling of puppies, kittens and other live animals for the titillation of viewers. Championed by Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., the legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress.

Three hundred million Americans lost their freedom to make "crush" videos. You oppose this loss of freedom? According to you, people act more responsibly when they have freedoms. So this loss of freedom will, according to you, result in the making of more "crush" videos. That is absolutely absurd.

You are correct. No one has made a suitcase nuke because it is illegal. But wait, you say "loss of freedom makes the illegal activity increase". Thus your own assertion is proven false by your own logic.

I argue that the same reasoning that makes suitcase nukes illegal should also apply to high capacity automatic rifle magazines. The Second Amendment does not provide for magazine clips, any more than it does suitcase nuclear weapons. If I cannot argue that the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a suitcase nuclear weapon, you cannot argue that the Second Amendment gives you the right to own high capactiy magazines.