Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

[Kennedy 0]

The difference there is simple. Laws agaisnt murder and other 'crimes' punish those who do something wrong.

Gun control laws try to use force of law to prevent 'crimes.' The trouble is you would have to think a criminal will follow one law, even though they plan to break another.

That is, unless you see soemthing inherently wrong with onwing that particular tool.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[benny 0]

Quote

Gun control laws try to use force of law to prevent 'crimes.'

So do drug control laws...

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun control laws try to use force of law to prevent 'crimes.'

So do drug control laws...

Come on, tell me you can see the difference here. The drugs laws exist because legislators think use of drugs is by itself a bad thing. Just like laws against murder exist because legislators think murder is a bad thing.

Gun laws, on the other hand, exist only to prevent other crimes. Everything bad you can do with a gun is already illegal. So unless you think owning a gun is a bad thing by itself, there is a difference.

To think gun control will work, you would have to think a criminal will follow one law, even though they plan to break another.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

My point in this long winded thread: just go easy man. There's no need to reject someone based on knowledge. Teach them. I promise it feels good.

Well put, Kennedy.
Believe it or not, you're preaching to the choir here.

I stand by my assertion that fundamental knowledge of what a virus is ought to be fairly ubiquitous by now. but never the less, you're absolutely right:

There are all sorts of things that others take for granted that I'm pretty oblivious to inspite of some exposure to them.

None of us can absorb all the interesting tidbits we're exposed to. It's nice to have friends to compliment your weaknesses or oversights.

I've got to admit that such friends have helped me countless times.

I don't know what I'd do with out them.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

The only people affected by gun control law are people who obey the laws. That's just the way it is.

The only people effected by any law are those who obey it. That is as long as we mean "can't do what I want to do " as defining effected. Hopefully people who ignore laws are effected by punishment.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Kennedy 0]

Do you see anything inherently wrong with gun ownership by people who have not committed any crimes?

If not, then you have to accept that the reasoning behind enacting gun control laws is to prevent someone from breaking another law. But how do you expect one law to stop a person who is already planning on breaking a more serious law?

Unless you believe owning a gun should be a crime, you have to admit the difference between gun control and other laws.

IN OTHER LAWS, YOU ARE PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

Tell me you are capable of seeing this obvious distinction.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[newsstand 0]

By definition breaking a law is doing something wrong. We had a constitutional amendment once that made drinking alcohol a crime. It didn't matter that you or I thought it was OK you drank booze you broke the law and it was "wrong."

I don't see anything inherently wrong with smoking pot or gays getting married or a lot of other things but in our current system they are against the law and by legal definition wrong. There are a lot of laws that should be changed or eliminated.

Do I think gun ownership is wrong, no. Do I think there are guns civilians should not be able to own, yes.

Your train of thought leads to a utopian look at the world. Nothing should be illegal because we all should do what is right. We have laws so that we can punish the people who do wrong not to hurt the people who don't do wrong. I don't steal because of the law but because I know it is wrong to steal. Laws don't prevent crime they only give us the ability to punish the people who break them.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Kennedy 0]

No law prevents an action. If someone wants to walk up to you and stab you with a steak knife, no law is going to stop them. Can you agree with that?

Laws against hurting someone else exist so we can punish someone after the fact. Can you agree with that?

Assuming you answered yes to both, then you recognize that banning a firearm will not stop it from being used in a crime. Doing so will only keep law abiding people from owning it.

So since gun control won't stop a firearm from being used in a crime, what point does it serve to ban others from owning it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Do I think gun ownership is wrong, no. Do I think there are guns civilians should not be able to own, yes.

So you don't think gun ownership is wrong. That's a good start.

What guns do you believe "civilians" should not be able to own? Why?

Quote

Your train of thought leads to a utopian look at the world. Nothing should be illegal because we all should do what is right. We have laws so that we can punish the people who do wrong not to hurt the people who don't do wrong. I don't steal because of the law but because I know it is wrong to steal. Laws don't prevent crime they only give us the ability to punish the people who break them.

Plenty of things should be illegal. That way we have a way to punish people when they do something wrong. You have said that you don't think owning a gun is wrong. So why make owning some guns illegal? It is already illegal to harm someone with it. Why put up a second law that won't stop criminals and won't make it any easier to prosecute them?

You've stated yourself that a law can't stop a person from acting as they please. So what do we accomplish by making something more illegal? Do we expect a second law will stop criminals when a single law won't?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gun control laws try to use force of law to prevent 'crimes.'

So do drug control laws...

Come on, tell me you can see the difference here. The drugs laws exist because legislators think use of drugs is by itself a bad thing. Just like laws against murder exist because legislators think murder is a bad thing.

Gun laws, on the other hand, exist only to prevent other crimes. Everything bad you can do with a gun is already illegal. So unless you think owning a gun is a bad thing by itself, there is a difference.

actually there isnt alot of difference at all...many legislators do think the use of guns (by anyone not military or law enforcement) is by itself a bad thing.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jkm2500 0]

Let me see if I can use your logic. So, it is ok for people to own specific types of guns. Are those guns any less deadly than the ones that you dont think people should have? I didn't think so. I am going to go out on a limb and say that most guns in the US are used in a law abiding way. If that is the case, why are we making it difficult for the law abiding to own guns. It is already a crime to commit murder. It is already a crime to attempt to commit murder. Any crime that someone uses a gun to commit is automatically a felony. Why do we need more laws on the books? Will it create less crime? No it won't.

Let's use your logic in a different manner. I think that there are some cars that civilians should not be able to own. Why? well they have no need for them. Honestly does anyone need a ferrari? Speed limit laws in the US only allow people to go 75MPH? What does any one have the need to go 200+MPH for? They will just break the law with the car.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[billvon 2,400]

>Let's use your logic in a different manner. I think that there are
> some cars that civilians should not be able to own. Why? well they
> have no need for them. Honestly does anyone need a ferrari?
> Speed limit laws in the US only allow people to go 75MPH? What
> does any one have the need to go 200+MPH for? They will just
> break the law with the car.

So wait a minute. You'd be OK with applying car-type laws to guns? i.e. anyone can own a gun as long as they register the gun, carry insurance on it, only carry it in gun-approved areas, get it inspected once a year etc?

The handgun vs car analogy, to me, has always seemed a bit silly. They are nothing like each other. One is used for transportation, the other is used to either kill people, to threaten to kill people, or to practice to do so. (Yes, cars can kill people and handguns can be used to win competitons, but those are not their primary usages.) Ownership of one is protected under the constitution, the other is not. I think this is one of those "be careful what you wish for" things; you would not want guns to be controlled in the same manner cars are, or vice versa.

[JmpJck 0]

Funny how Republicans think all these Weapons are OK and can be controlled by parents in the home, but a dangerous weapon like a Radio can not has Howard Stern has to be banned.

[jkm2500 0]

Bill,

The point of my argument was not to show the vast differences of two completely different subjects. It was to point out the thought process.

But if we want to get onto a debate of which is worse. I know for a fact that there are more deaths caused by mixing alcohol and driving. Now, to use your argument.....Licensing, registration, insurance, that whole 9 yards isnt really wroking in that case is it? IF it was wouldn't there be zero deaths because of reckless behavior?

I want to point out that the there are more deaths that fall under the "vehicular death" umbrella than the ones atributed strictly to driking and driving.

I am sure that we can agree that not every one on the road should have a license. Or that their cars a road worthy. We have laws that are in place to protect the public from irresponsible car owners.

In summation: Car owners are more likely to break laws concerning their cars then there are gun owners that are willing to break the laws about their guns. (disclaimer: this is an assumption)

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Funny how Republicans think all these Weapons are OK and can be controlled by parents in the home, but a dangerous weapon like a Radio can not has Howard Stern has to be banned.

What Republicans are trying to ban Howard Stern? Last I heard, Clear Channel, had taken him off 6 of their radio stations. He's still on several hundred more.

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

Funny how Republicans think all these Weapons are OK and can be controlled by parents in the home, but a dangerous weapon like a Radio can not has Howard Stern has to be banned.

What I find funny is that people are so willing to make generalized statements about others beliefs.

I am a Republican, and I don't care what you listen to on the radio. I don't care what you watch on TV. I don't care who you marry or don't marry. Those are your god-given rights. (yes, I said god-given).

Take that into consideration next time. Oh, and by the way I think that gun laws are made up by people who fear guns. I don't think that anyone who has had a gun pointed at them would walk away from the incident still wanting guns taken out of the hands of the common man......Why? because then you would have no way to defend your self.

I know, I brought up the whole idea of defend your self. (I can hear the voices right now, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves if there were no guns....) Do you honestly think that the criminals are going to wake up one morning and say, "it's against the law to use a gun in a crime, maybe I shouldn't do it?"

If you honestly believe that the criminals will change their minds and stop breaking the law, just because you added another law to the books you are deluded. You might want to change your method of thinking.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Let's use your logic in a different manner. I think that there are
> some cars that civilians should not be able to own. Why? well they
> have no need for them. Honestly does anyone need a ferrari?
> Speed limit laws in the US only allow people to go 75MPH? What
> does any one have the need to go 200+MPH for? They will just
> break the law with the car.

So wait a minute. You'd be OK with applying car-type laws to guns? i.e. anyone can own a gun as long as they register the gun, carry insurance on it, only carry it in gun-approved areas, get it inspected once a year etc?

The handgun vs car analogy, to me, has always seemed a bit silly. They are nothing like each other. One is used for transportation, the other is used to either kill people, to threaten to kill people, or to practice to do so. (Yes, cars can kill people and handguns can be used to win competitons, but those are not their primary usages.) Ownership of one is protected under the constitution, the other is not. I think this is one of those "be careful what you wish for" things; you would not want guns to be controlled in the same manner cars are, or vice versa.

This is pretty weak logic. I'm sure the ratio of automobiles in existence verses the number of people killed by cars is greater than the number of guns in existence per death ratio.

[benny 0]

Quote

Let's use your logic in a different manner. I think that there are some cars that civilians should not be able to own. Why? well they have no need for them. Honestly does anyone need a ferrari? Speed limit laws in the US only allow people to go 75MPH? What does any one have the need to go 200+MPH for? They will just break the law with the car.

Hmm, Ferrari may not be one of them but as far as I know there are some cars which you cannot have, and if you can have, can never use on the streets of the United States.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

Do I think gun ownership is wrong, no. Do I think there are guns civilians should not be able to own, yes.

...
What guns do you believe "civilians" should not be able to own? Why?

I've said this elsewhere in this thread but will say it again here. You're not going to like it. Guns whose primary design purpose is to kill people not game. This would include any weapon designed for use by the military and guns designed to look like guns designed for the military. Yes I know deer rifle can be used to kill people but when someone looks at it that is not what they imagine it being used for. It is also a lot harder to sneak one into a convenience store than say an Uszi (SP?). I had the pleasure of taking the a week of Army basic training while I was in the Air Force. The combat arms familiarization part. This was nearly 25 years ago so not all of the details remain clear. We fired a lot of M-16 rounds, learned about grenade launchers, fired a rather large (50 caliber I think) machine gun. At night no less, tracers are cool. Threw a couple of live handgrenades and fired a Light Anti-tank Weapon (LAW). Granted it only had a "willy-pete" smoke rocket in it. I don't think civilians need to own any of those weapons.

Quote

... You have said that you don't think owning a gun is wrong. So why make owning some guns illegal? It is already illegal to harm someone with it. Why put up a second law that won't stop criminals and won't make it any easier to prosecute them?

Because some guns are more dangerous than others. I also believe in mandatory training and licensing. I have to have more training to get a drivers license than to buy a gun.

Quote

You've stated yourself that a law can't stop a person from acting as they please. So what do we accomplish by making something more illegal? Do we expect a second law will stop criminals when a single law won't?

If the weapon is illegal two things happen. Legal demand for it goes away and manufacturing declines or ceases. We need to face the fact that every legally manufactured gun that is used in a crime was originally purchased legally and then made it's way into the hands of a "bad guy." Quite possibly stolen from the home of a responsible gun owner. If a person commits a crime and has in their possesion an illegal firearm that is one more charge against them and hopefully increases their punishment. I don't see how you can say it won't make it easier to prosecute them any additional charge helps.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[jkm2500 0]

Benny,

I was trying to point out the flawed thought process......it appears that you have the same thought process.

Point is: What I am getting from you is that I don't need an AR-15, so therefore I shouldn't have one.

I used the example: I don't feel people need to own a Ferrari, so the thought process you (I am assuming here) are using says that because there is no need, no one should be able to own one.

I guess that my thought process is different than yours. I feel that if people act responsibly, then they should have more freedom to do what they want to do, not less. Therefore if you are a responsible gun owner, then there should be less limitations on what you should be able to own. Let us also remember that it has been illegal to own a machine gun since 1932(I believe). I also feel that if you are a responsible car owner then it shouldn't matter what car you want to drive.

Josh

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Do you see anything inherently wrong with gun ownership by people who have not committed any crimes?

Quote

George does (note future tense):

"I believe that people who are gonna commit crimes shouldn't have guns", G. W. Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

XXL said that his intelligence was questioned by someone that doesn't even know what a computer virus is.

Someone that uses computers, even recreationally, really ought to know what a computer virus is.

The level of ignorance it would take to not have at least a basic understanding of the concept of a computer virus ought to call their general intelligence into question.

You are making the mistake of taking his word at face value that this person doesn't know what a computer virus is. If the accuser is referring to the posting I think he is, that wasn't the issue at all. The subject knew what a virus was, and was just asking for some specifics about a particular file type. You shouldn't assume that when someone wants to criticize another, that they are providing you with a correct characterization of that other person's messages. He biased his description in order to make you believe what he wanted you to believe.

If the facts were as you say, I would agree with you. But they aren't.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Kennedy once told me that there's a loophole that allows a felon to not declare his status to a gun seller and buy a gun. If that's the case, then I'd be for closing that loophole.

A idea is that a felon doesn't have to tell the truth on the form, admitting that he is a felon, because that is "self incrimination". However, if he does lie on the form, the background check will catch it. And then he's still committed the crime of being an ex-felon trying to buy a gun. And if the self-incrimination argument doesn't hold, he can also be found guilty of lying on the form. Either one of those is a ticket straight back to jail.

Oddly enough, the Clinton Justice department didn't see fit to prosecute these guys though. They weren't interested in actually punishing ex-criminals for trying to buy guns, only in taking guns away from people who weren't criminals. Fortunately, such prosecutions are way up under the Bush administration.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The only people affected by gun control law are people who obey the laws. That's just the way it is.

This is a flawed logic which could easily be applied to any other law.
The only people affected by murder laws are people who obey the laws.
The only people affected by insider trading laws are the people who obey the laws.
Nope nope, it's just not true, because if you break the law and you get caught you can be prosecuted.

The point is - laws don't stop criminals from breaking the law. All it does is give some basis to prosecute them after the fact.

As applied to guns, this means that passing laws in the belief that it is going to reduce gun crime, is useless. And since it is already against the law to attack people, we don't need more gun laws. We already have laws on the books which can be used to prosecute people you use guns in crime.

It is a waste of time to try to pass laws trying to prevent criminals from getting guns, and all you end up doing is ensnaring innocent people in technical violations. Just look at the silliness of airline travelers who have had property confiscated and charges placed against them, for trying to innocently travel with things like knitting needles and pocket knives. We shouldn't be turning honest citizens into "criminals", by passing laws which are useless in their intended function; stopping criminals.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do I think gun ownership is wrong, no. Do I think there are guns civilians should not be able to own, yes.

We proved to you that the so-called "assault weapons" you thought should be illegal to own, were really not what you thought them to be. Like a lot of people, you had been fooled by media misinformation into believing that they were machineguns. In fact, they are just semi-auto rifles, which have a removable magazine, along with a flash suppressor, folding stock, bayonet lug and/or pistol grip. In other words, simple cosmetic features that make them "look scary" to some people.

So, are you now ready to admit that the 1994 assault weapon ban is a sham, and should not be extended beyond its September expiration date?