Chris Matthews: Gun Control Speech Coming Soon
-
A former Bush aid was murdered and dumped in a dumpster.
Sarah Palin gets death threats from the left.
President Reagan was shot.
Sarah Palin's children receive death threats.
Want to know where those violent, threatening people get their ideas?
From you and Shep, maybe. From CNN and MSNBS, Solon and MoveonupObamaosshorts.orgy.
There isn't any "paranoia" when we can point out, that Hillary and Obamao et all, AGREE with
the UN's stance on disarming civilian populations. As a non-gun owner, Heck, you are out in left field,
and don't understand gun owenship, responsibilities, and the attacks on gun ownership.
If you applied the same rationalization to other murders, Heck, it isn't guns that consistently is used
by nutcases in the crimes. So, you tell me, why is it, that ONLY guns are targeted @@ for "restrictions" and
not any other weapon? That in itself, is a leading indicator of the bigotry toward gun ownership, and also,
the ulterior motives of those on the left who espouse gun control, knowing full well it won't stop that crime.
Was Bobby Kennedy killed with a pistol with a huge clip? Take a guess, Heck...
-
Nah, you won't answer that question, like you ignore the UN stuff, with Hillary and Obamao support.... etc.
I suppose we should limit revolvers to TWO shots, eh?
It's all bogus, beyond common sense. And the ulterior motive is, yes it is...
banning hunting, and gun ownership.
************************
"Convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed Presidential candidate United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, California on 5 June 1968 with an eight-shot Iver Johnson .22 caliber Cadet 55-A revolver (serial number H-53725, Trial-People's Exhibit #6, misidentified in trial testimony as S/N H-18602).".
-
Again, Cal, you're not understanding what I'm writing. No one is suggesting that a law like this would stop all gun crimes. Don't be ridiculous and hysterical.
Anyone else?
-
No, you're sort of missing the point. My point is that a new law wont fix the problem of extended magazines currently in the hands of nut-jobs. I'm saying they wont be lining up to hand in the newly illegal clips. (Remember: the nut-jobs are the problem, not the magazine size.) Therefore, a new law isn't the solution, but colossal waste of legislative resources.
I know what your point is, and that's exactly what my comment was referring to. I'm saying those are not very good arguments. Because they're not.
And why would you imagine that magazine restrictions would only be designed to stop this exact incident, with this exact type of nutjob, from happening again? Again, you're missing the point by focusing on the idea that any new law would be a) a foolproof way to stop this type of thing from happening again, or
would get nutjobs to hand in their illegal clips. But that wouldn't be the point of new legislation. Also, it seems clear that if this nutjob hadn't been able to so easily obtain an extended magazine he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people so quickly. And we also know that he was stopped when he finally had to reload.
So here's the upside of the law: in some situations, these types of events won't bring the same body count.
Or let me give you another example: the cops pull over a guy with a small arsenal of legal guns, but with illegal magazine clips, on his way to shoot up the ACLU and Tides Foundation. In addition to charging him with conspiracy to commit murder, you can charge him with additional firearm violations and get him off the streets for a longer period of time.
Or here's another example: a cop pulls a nutjob like Jared Loughner and finds his gun with an extended ammo clip. Jared gets arrested, found to be insane, and put in the system and can no longer legally obtain a gun.
The downside of the legislation: some people will have to reload more often at shooting ranges.
Now, is that a common sense gun law? We've had it before, and recently. Seems to make sense to me. Will it make a huge dent in gun crimes in America? I wouldn't think so, but it would have some impact, and would not violate anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. If you need to own a gun for your personal protection, it's hard to imagine a scenario where you're in a shootout requiring 30 rounds at once. These clips will be used almost exclusively by gang members, criminals, and people on murder sprees. I don't see the need to defend that.
So I don't think it's a colossal waste of legislative time at all. Assault weapons bans can be riddled with holes and end up being more for show than anything, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to make one that isn't riddled with holes.
PS - When did cops shoot the guy who wanted to kill everyone at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation? When he paused to reload.
PPS - In addition to Dick Cheney, cops also don't like extended magazines in the hands of nutjobs and criminals. So let's stop pretending this is some bleeding heart issue driven by people who want to ban guns altogether.
I know what your point is, and that's exactly what my comment was referring to. I'm saying those are not very good arguments. Because they're not.
And why would you imagine that magazine restrictions would only be designed to stop this exact incident, with this exact type of nutjob, from happening again? Again, you're missing the point by focusing on the idea that any new law would be a) a foolproof way to stop this type of thing from happening again, or
would get nutjobs to hand in their illegal clips. But that wouldn't be the point of new legislation. Also, it seems clear that if this nutjob hadn't been able to so easily obtain an extended magazine he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people so quickly. And we also know that he was stopped when he finally had to reload.
The magazine could have been obtained just the same, as it is a magazine currently in existence. He might have been stopped sooner if somebody else in the audience had a firearm.
So here's the upside of the law: in some situations, these types of events won't bring the same body count.
In what way? Pretty sure he was arming himself with what he wanted to, not with simply what was available to him.
Or let me give you another example: the cops pull over a guy with a small arsenal of legal guns, but with illegal magazine clips, on his way to shoot up the ACLU and Tides Foundation. In addition to charging him with conspiracy to commit murder, you can charge him with additional firearm violations and get him off the streets for a longer period of time.
Or here's another example: a cop pulls a nutjob like Jared Loughner and finds his gun with an extended ammo clip. Jared gets arrested, found to be insane, and put in the system and can no longer legally obtain a gun.
Holy hypotheticals, Batman. Were extended clips to be illegal, would Jared have been brandishing them out the window like a moron to initiate the routine traffic stop? wtf? Or do suddenly illegal extended magazines now come with a bumper sticker that says "xxxx a warrant, search me anyway"? Why wasn't he stopped this time?
The downside of the legislation: some people will have to reload more often at shooting ranges.
Now, is that a common sense gun law? We've had it before, and recently. Seems to make sense to me. Will it make a huge dent in gun crimes in America? I wouldn't think so, but it would have some impact, and would not violate anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. If you need to own a gun for your personal protection, it's hard to imagine a scenario where you're in a shootout requiring 30 rounds at once. These clips will be used almost exclusively by gang members, criminals, and people on murder sprees. I don't see the need to defend that.
Right. Because if there is one way to keep contraband off the streets and out of the hands of delinquents, that's to criminalize it.
So I don't think it's a colossal waste of legislative time at all. Assault weapons bans can be riddled with holes and end up being more for show than anything, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to make one that isn't riddled with holes.
There are two amendments to our Constitution that would strongly disagree with you.
PS - When did cops shoot the guy who wanted to kill everyone at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation? When he paused to reload.
PPS - In addition to Dick Cheney, cops also don't like extended magazines in the hands of nutjobs and criminals. So let's stop pretending this is some bleeding heart issue driven by people who want to ban guns altogether.
Exactly - but they WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. See Marijauna, cocaine, and the thousands of illegal fire-arms currently populating our streets and putting our police officers in danger.
-
Just for your information almost anyone can make an extended magazine.
So it wont matter if there is a law or not, those who want one will still be able to make one or have one made.
But the typical whining knee jerk liberal will want to create new laws and regulations against law abiding citizens.
-
Again, Leg, can you make your argument without arguing against a point that I'm not making? Every point you just made used the same tactic.
And the assault weapons ban was constitutional, remember? It had a ban on this type of magazine. It was the law of the land, and recently. Why would you think that re-upping the ban would be unconstitutional now? It wouldn't be.
As for your scoffing at the idea that making a certain type of ammunition clip "contraband" would have no impact, that's sort of a lazy argument too. Much like scoffing at the notion that cops often find illegal material in a person's car when they pull them over. These are scenarios that are just too impossible for you to imagine? Really? Cops don't search vehicles?
Come on. You can do better than pretending.
What's your rationale for keeping a clip that size? Why would one need one to defend their home, or for protection, or hunting?
What about "cop killer" bullets? What's the rationale for those?
What guns laws would you like to see?
-
Again, Leg, can you make your argument without arguing against a point that I'm not making? Every point you just made used the same tactic.
And the assault weapons ban was constitutional, remember? It had a ban on this type of magazine. It was the law of the land, and recently. Why would you think that re-upping the ban would be unconstitutional now? It wouldn't be.
As for your scoffing at the idea that making a certain type of ammunition clip "contraband" would have no impact, that's sort of a lazy argument too. Much like scoffing at the notion that cops often find illegal material in a person's car when they pull them over. These are scenarios that are just too impossible for you to imagine? Really? Cops don't search vehicles?
Come on. You can do better than pretending.
What's your rationale for keeping a clip that size? Why would one need one to defend their home, or for protection, or hunting?
What about "cop killer" bullets? What's the rationale for those?
What guns laws would you like to see?
Again, Leg, can you make your argument without arguing against a point that I'm not making? Every point you just made used the same tactic.
And the assault weapons ban was constitutional, remember? It had a ban on this type of magazine. It was the law of the land, and recently. Why would you think that re-upping the ban would be unconstitutional now? It wouldn't be.
As for your scoffing at the idea that making a certain type of ammunition clip "contraband" would have no impact, that's sort of a lazy argument too. Much like scoffing at the notion that cops often find illegal material in a person's car when they pull them over. These are scenarios that are just too impossible for you to imagine? Really? Cops don't search vehicles?
Come on. You can do better than pretending.
What's your rationale for keeping a clip that size? Why would one need one to defend their home, or for protection, or hunting?
What about "cop killer" bullets? What's the rationale for those?
What guns laws would you like to see?
Which arguments exactly are you not making? The list of hypotheticals? The wall of hyperbole you're asking everyone to climb in order to have a simple discussion?
I'm scoffing at the notion of simply making something contraband in an effort to eradicate its presence/use because I BACKED IT UP WITH EVIDENCE. Amendments 18 & 21 specifically. Weed. Coke. Anything else that even a preacher could obtain with a phone-call or two. A Tuesday for Andy Dick.
The Assault weapons ban didn't actually ban fully automatic weapons. Only semi-autos. Like banning Bartles & James vs banning moonshine. Since its inception, we've had Columbine, VaTech, Az, the Pennsylvania Amish thing, among others. Way to go Congress! #fail
Of course cops find illegal items during routine stops. But you're tossing out a ton of "what if's" that I'm exposing as "whiffs." Sure a cop could have pulled Jared over and iced him for having an illegal clip, but he didn't because there was no cause to pull him over in the 1st place. For your argument to work, you'd have to allow the police to step up their profiling game. I'm certain you don't want that.
Here's one: What if a drunk driver ran an intersection and killed Jared as he was making his way to the rally? Maybe we should bring drunk driving back on the table. Afterall, look what we would have prevented in magical what-if land.
Cop Killer bullets? Seriously, Tipper? You mean the bullets invented by a police officer right? Look, Criminals will always have access to things they aren't supposed to. Shuffling "the list" every few years wont change that.
I'm kind of more interested in how our government intends to dream up 2 trillion dollars. And get our infrastructure out of the Mayberry ages. Replace our power-grid with something efficient. You keep worrying over the difference between killing 6 people, vs 3 people.
-
You're not suggesting that there aren't plenty of reasonably sane Americans who'd like to see guns banned altogether are you Heck?
They might see this as a step in the right direction.
I was gonna end with a "no?"
WSS
There are some, sure. And they're also irrelevant because it'd clearly be unconstitutional to do so. And they're even more irrelevant because I'm not sure you could find a single member of Congress who takes that position, or even something close to that.
No one is seriously trying to "take away your guns", nor could they. This is why people who trade in that kind of stuff are woefully uninformed or paranoid, probably both.
There are some, sure. And they're also irrelevant because it'd clearly be unconstitutional to do so. And they're even more irrelevant because I'm not sure you could find a single member of Congress who takes that position, or even something close to that.
No one is seriously trying to "take away your guns", nor could they. This is why people who trade in that kind of stuff are woefully uninformed or paranoid, probably both.
Well no way to prove it but I'd bet that if there were a vote to go with, say, Englands gun laws it would not be unanimous.
Same if it got to the SC.
But who knows.
And yes I think the restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
That doesn't mean I disagree.
It just means the amendment is outdated like it or not.
WSS
-
Leg, this is really bush league stuff. Here's the argument you're making:
Me: Since it's dangerous, we could penalize grabbing the facemask, and that should reduce the incidence of facemask grabbing.
You: That's not going to eliminate facemask grabbing! People always have and always will grab the facemask. Why bother? I saw a facemask penalty in the Steelers game, the Ravens game, the Dolphins game. I'd rather the stadiums have more parking.
Again, you're arguing extremes here. Public policy is rarely, if ever, a question of "eradicating" a problem. You manage problems. Take your drug example: we "control" substances. We don't imagine that we're going to eliminate them.
Same thing here. You're simply trying to find Constitutional ways to manage gun violence in America. And if you're so unconcerned with the idea that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (which, of course, isn't true) then why wouldn't you want to have rules in place that penalize them for when they're caught with things we don't want them to have?
In order to make a case for having a extended magazine clip like Loughner had you'd have to make the case for why that's something law-abiding citizens need and use for their personal protection or hunting, not throw your hands up and say "well, criminals get whatever they want, so what's the point?" So what's the rationale for having such a clip? Maybe there is one. So far I've only heard that it forces you to reload at firing ranges more often. That seems like an acceptable, common sense trade off to me.
And please try and get that when I'm talking about Loughner types with guns I'm not referring that specific incident, but the types of incidents law enforcement encounters every day. And try to get that I'm not suggesting - and you shouldn't be inferring - that a cop would have some sort of ESP power and would be able to divine whether or not a person had an illegal gun in their car, then pull them over. Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the types of "plain view" searches that cops do every time they pull someone over, which often lead to full searches. I'm talking about stuff that cops already do, and have done for years.
Honestly.
-
There are some, sure. And they're also irrelevant because it'd clearly be unconstitutional to do so. And they're even more irrelevant because I'm not sure you could find a single member of Congress who takes that position, or even something close to that.
No one is seriously trying to "take away your guns", nor could they. This is why people who trade in that kind of stuff are woefully uninformed or paranoid, probably both.
Well no way to prove it but I'd bet that if there were a vote to go with, say, Englands gun laws it would not be unanimous.
Same if it got to the SC.
But who knows.
And yes I think the restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
That doesn't mean I disagree.
It just means the amendment is outdated like it or not.
WSS
Well no way to prove it but I'd bet that if there were a vote to go with, say, Englands gun laws it would not be unanimous.
Same if it got to the SC.
But who knows.
And yes I think the restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
That doesn't mean I disagree.
It just means the amendment is outdated like it or not.
WSS
I disagree on both points. I don't think the essential rights in the amendment are "outdated." Nor do I think restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. You also have the ability to put restrictions on that right as long as you preserve the essential right.
Restricting magazine size, or the types of weaponry they can own, does not deny them the right to bear arms - in other words, a guy with a gun with a 10-round clip and a guy with a gun with a 30-round clip clearly both have the right to keep and bear arms. If you tell the second guy he can't have a clip that size you haven't taken away his right to be armed.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and yet you haven't taken away that man's right to free speech.
-
Well no way to prove it but I'd bet that if there were a vote to go with, say, Englands gun laws it would not be unanimous.
Same if it got to the SC.
But who knows.
And yes I think the restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
That doesn't mean I disagree.
It just means the amendment is outdated like it or not.
WSS
I disagree on both points. I don't think the essential rights in the amendment are "outdated." Nor do I think restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. You also have the ability to put restrictions on that right as long as you preserve the essential right.
Restricting magazine size, or the types of weaponry they can own, does not deny them the right to bear arms - in other words, a guy with a gun with a 10-round clip and a guy with a gun with a 30-round clip clearly both have the right to keep and bear arms. If you tell the second guy he can't have a clip that size you haven't taken away his right to be armed.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and yet you haven't taken away that man's right to free speech.
I disagree on both points. I don't think the essential rights in the amendment are "outdated." Nor do I think restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. You also have the ability to put restrictions on that right as long as you preserve the essential right.
Restricting magazine size, or the types of weaponry they can own, does not deny them the right to bear arms - in other words, a guy with a gun with a 10-round clip and a guy with a gun with a 30-round clip clearly both have the right to keep and bear arms. If you tell the second guy he can't have a clip that size you haven't taken away his right to be armed.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and yet you haven't taken away that man's right to free speech.
So limiting the clip to one round no larger than .18 would be perfectly constitutional?
So why do you think the amendment was written Heck?
(I bet you know)
WSS
-
I don't think you're the man to discuss what "reasonable restrictions" would mean. You'd have to be able to make distinctions, and deal in something other than absolutes.
As for the 2nd Amendment, they wrote it for lots of reasons. You can go back and read all of the arguments for it if you like. Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
That idea is not "outdated." The "well-regulated militia" stuff may be, but no one uses those arguments in 2nd amendment cases anymore anyway.
-
I don't think you're the man to discuss what "reasonable restrictions" would mean. You'd have to be able to make distinctions, and deal in something other than absolutes.
As for the 2nd Amendment, they wrote it for lots of reasons. You can go back and read all of the arguments for it if you like. Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
That idea is not "outdated." The "well-regulated militia" stuff may be, but no one uses those arguments in 2nd amendment cases anymore anyway.
Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Again, Cal, you're not understanding what I'm writing. No one is suggesting that a law like this would stop all gun crimes. Don't be ridiculous and hysterical.
Anyone else?
**************************************
Steve is exactly right. Actually all of us are, Heck - except you.
You are the "whirling dervish" of the board. Show me where I ever said that "a law like this would stop all gun crimes".
Nothin. You got nothin, but a desperate attempt to rewrite my position, so you can keep acting like you
have the upper hand.
The rationalization that "the murderer used a big clip, so we have to get rid of big clips"
is BOGUS. That is the whole you are circle dancing around.
THAT is why I responded with the info on the gun that killed Bobby Kennedy. Eight shots in a revolver.
Answer that, with regard to your goofy rationalization about magazine sizes.
I dare ya to man up and answer it. There isn't any gun control that will stop all gun crimes, the rest of us know that.
But you don't seem to know that.
Making magazine sizes smaller doesn't solve anything. Banning all guns entirely doesn't eliminate criminals freely
using illegal guns on a defenseless populace.
So, the only reason that people like you support more gun regulation, like restricting magazine sizes to even smaller seem
to be only for one, maybe two reasons:
1. You don't really care that passing another gun control law will be futile in any real world. But, you have ulterior
motives to fight the fight. Like "nudging" for more and more control to the direction of finally, openly violating the 2nd
Amendment.
2. You are a dimwitted, ignorant jackwagon who still gets stoned while listening to hard rock, and you worship
the Lennon song "Imagine", and it makes you feel important to stand against the status quo, especially when
other people like their guns, but you don't like them, and you dream of being Dictator of the World, or at least,
his butler.
Pick one, Heck. Or pick both if they apply. But please stop spinning around subjects, like a blade of grass in a tornado.
I'll bet you will end up making the rest of us dizzy.
-
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again. Steve
***********************************
Exactly. So did the Nazi's.
And on and on. The left can only dream of that happening here.
-
Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
It's spinning to suggest that the Framers believed in an individual right to self-defense? Holy moly. You have a one sentence answer to everything, don't you?
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government."
That's John Adams debating ratification of the 2nd Amendment. That's him saying, "Citizens should have guns for self-defense, but the use of arms beyond that should only be in the service of the state or else you'll invite total lawlessness." He's essentially saying all I want people to have guns for is self-defense. All the other guns he wants in the service of the police and the army.
You really don't want to go down this path. I know you're already wedded to your "it's out of date" notion, but the notion of individual self-defense is not outdated by time.
Or maybe you can tell me what is "outdated" about what Adams is saying here?
-
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
-
Leg, this is really bush league stuff. Here's the argument you're making:
Me: Since it's dangerous, we could penalize grabbing the facemask, and that should reduce the incidence of facemask grabbing.
You: That's not going to eliminate facemask grabbing! People always have and always will grab the facemask. Why bother? I saw a facemask penalty in the Steelers game, the Ravens game, the Dolphins game. I'd rather the stadiums have more parking.
Again, you're arguing extremes here. Public policy is rarely, if ever, a question of "eradicating" a problem. You manage problems. Take your drug example: we "control" substances. We don't imagine that we're going to eliminate them.
Same thing here. You're simply trying to find Constitutional ways to manage gun violence in America. And if you're so unconcerned with the idea that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (which, of course, isn't true) then why wouldn't you want to have rules in place that penalize them for when they're caught with things we don't want them to have?
In order to make a case for having a extended magazine clip like Loughner had you'd have to make the case for why that's something law-abiding citizens need and use for their personal protection or hunting, not throw your hands up and say "well, criminals get whatever they want, so what's the point?" So what's the rationale for having such a clip? Maybe there is one. So far I've only heard that it forces you to reload at firing ranges more often. That seems like an acceptable, common sense trade off to me.
And please try and get that when I'm talking about Loughner types with guns I'm not referring that specific incident, but the types of incidents law enforcement encounters every day. And try to get that I'm not suggesting - and you shouldn't be inferring - that a cop would have some sort of ESP power and would be able to divine whether or not a person had an illegal gun in their car, then pull them over. Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the types of "plain view" searches that cops do every time they pull someone over, which often lead to full searches. I'm talking about stuff that cops already do, and have done for years.
Honestly.
Leg, this is really bush league stuff. Here's the argument you're making:
Me: Since it's dangerous, we could penalize grabbing the facemask, and that should reduce the incidence of facemask grabbing.
You: That's not going to eliminate facemask grabbing! People always have and always will grab the facemask. Why bother? I saw a facemask penalty in the Steelers game, the Ravens game, the Dolphins game. I'd rather the stadiums have more parking.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go back & read what you wrote. You're saying eliminate the facemask. And I'm the one arguing extremes? And, not surprisingly, you've misread my argument. I'm saying that if you eliminate the facemask, they'll only grab the nose. Or eyesocket. I'm looking for a better tackler, not more parking spaces. Try and avoid the platitudes.
Again, you're arguing extremes here. Public policy is rarely, if ever, a question of "eradicating" a problem. You manage problems. Take your drug example: we "control" substances. We don't imagine that we're going to eliminate them.
18th Amendment. AgainSame thing here. You're simply trying to find Constitutional ways to manage gun violence in America. And if you're so unconcerned with the idea that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (which, of course, isn't true) then why wouldn't you want to have rules in place that penalize them for when they're caught with things we don't want them to have?
Those rules are there. You're arguing over a marginal difference in body count.In order to make a case for having a extended magazine clip like Loughner had you'd have to make the case for why that's something law-abiding citizens need and use for their personal protection or hunting, not throw your hands up and say "well, criminals get whatever they want, so what's the point?" So what's the rationale for having such a clip? Maybe there is one. So far I've only heard that it forces you to reload at firing ranges more often. That seems like an acceptable, common sense trade off to me.
Self-Defense exactly the case I'm making. If Jared's going to use one (and he will regardless of this utopia you've envisioned), I'd like him to have to reload before I have to.And please try and get that when I'm talking about Loughner types with guns I'm not referring that specific incident, but the types of incidents law enforcement encounters every day. And try to get that I'm not suggesting - and you shouldn't be inferring - that a cop would have some sort of ESP power and would be able to divine whether or not a person had an illegal gun in their car, then pull them over. Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the types of "plain view" searches that cops do every time they pull someone over, which often lead to full searches. I'm talking about stuff that cops already do, and have done for years.
Honestly.
I'm hardly inferring any of that. I'm saying that the Loughner's, McVeigh's etc, aren't exactly speeding with a busted tail-light on their way to "the scene." Those buffoons are reserved for COPS & Jerry Springer.
-
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
-
Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used. Heck
**********************************
The idea that citizens don't need guns as a militia - I'm fine with that...
unless hell freezes over, and a leftist Obamao type declares unwarranted permanent martial law,
disbands our military and police forces, Congress and the Supreme Court, and goes with his own rent-a-military from another country.
Now, that's ridiculous. But to assume it couldn't happen, is bit like "Why England Slept".
We agreed on machine guns. But the incessant rambling about "well, let's outlaw er.... big clips". Then you can simply
redefine what clip is acceptable and legal... to .. zero, later.
And "Let's just outlaw those rifles with several shots in the cylinder below the barrel"... which outlaws a lot of bb guns, even.
And "Let's just outlaw all semi-auto pistols and handguns"... which goes further and further to the goal of
dismantling the 2 Amendment rights of every American citizen, bit by bit.
And "Let's ban revolvers because so and so..." is just another block that helps make up the barrier to any gun ownership.
And "oh, don't be silly, nobody thinks that" doesn't fly one thousand of an inch across the ground before crashing...
It's far too easily proven that totally banning guns in the absolute intent of many on the left.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login