CCW

[beaslbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/60#post_3505507
Article 1 section 8 The Congress shall have the power........
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Agreed.
Congress declares that a state of war exists.
But without that declaration the same exact conditions including battles of our military can still exist. Just that congress had not declared war.
But congress funds the conditions (war) and the president excutes the conditions (war) as commander in chief.
And those conditions come to an end when congress defunds those conditions (war).
So no declaration of war is required.
When debating the constitution it was debated whether or not congress will declare or make war. Declare was chosen.

 

[darthtang aw]

Let's not confuse things where people do unhealthy / unsafe things to themselves (ie. your cheesecake example), with the threat of safety to others.
Your rights are abridged by the government when you get on an airplane, smoke a cigarrette (in most states), drink and drive, get pulled over by a police officer, etc.  Can you give an example of something where people can use something to kill others, yet the individual rights remain intact without limitation?  If you can, then I will pose the same argument to prohibit said conduct or item...
Alcohol and Firearms are both currently restricted in the same manner.
To own a gun you must be of age. To drink you must be of age.
You are not allowed to drink and drive, just like you are not allowed to shoot a gun at people. Violate these laws and your privileges to these are removed. In both cases until such time as the law states.
Now, the banning of the assault weapon would be akin to banning beer because far more drunk driving accidents occur under the influence of beer. But you can still get vodka, wine, whiskey and so on. We are just going to ban beer to reduce the incidents of the already illegal action of drinking and driving. How ridiculous does that sound?
Except, in this case we are not banning the primary gun used to kill people and commit crimes. We are discussing the gun that takes up the smallest percent of the gun market.
Handguns are used illegally more times in one year than assault weapons in the last 7 years.
You want to ban something, ban the 30 round magazine...this responsible gun owners most likely will agree with.
Under the old assault weapons ban an assault weapon was classified as
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

 

[crimzy]

To compare assault weapons with other types of products on the market is asinine. So far the only argument for the "right" to have them is the slippery slope argument that the next step will be to prohibit alcohol, automobiles, planes, junk food, etc. These things are apples and oranges, and to ignore that is simply silly. Don't forget the Texas Chainsaw Massacre... we may have to outlaw chainsaws next, (need a roll eyes smiley)...
Can you analyze the issue without the flawed slippery slope argument. Do you really think that this imposition on your liberty outweighs the public interest of making assault weapons tougher for bad guys to get?

 

[darthtang aw]

Actually it isn't asinine. The contention is assault weapons are primarily used for killing or harming others. What is the alternate use of alcohol other than to get drunk or alter state of mind which Inturn endangers others?

 

[crimzy]

Alcohol has been prohibited...didn't work. And alcohol is a beverage that is used to hydrate, enjoy, used for religious purposes, etc. And the use of alcohol is limited by law.
Why is it that the only argument in favor of assault weapons is to evade and talk about other products? Could it be that you have no real argument to support the sale of assault weapons on the market?
Whether you want to evade or not, an analysis of this legal issue is not dependant upon the government's treatment of completely different product. I've given you the legal standard but if I have to repeat it I'm going to start charging hourly.
Now go ahead and make your first argument that your need for this weapon outweighs the public interest in limiting bad people's access to them. If you can't make this argument (and only this argument) persuasively then you lose the debate.
Any other product you mention has and will continue to be subject to the same analysis in the courts based on it's own unique factors.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505590
To compare assault weapons with other types of products on the market is asinine. So far the only argument for the "right" to have them is the slippery slope argument that the next step will be to prohibit alcohol, automobiles, planes, junk food, etc. These things are apples and oranges, and to ignore that is simply silly. Don't forget the Texas Chainsaw Massacre... we may have to outlaw chainsaws next, (need a roll eyes smiley)...
Can you analyze the issue without the flawed slippery slope argument. Do you really think that this imposition on your liberty outweighs the public interest of making assault weapons tougher for bad guys to get?
I think that anyone who has been around guns long enough would argue that comparing what you are calling assault weapons (like what military would use) to the main weapon in question in these threads is also in fact like comparing apples to oranges. Whether a gun is designed for killing or a can of beer that is designed for drinking in order to gain an altered state of mind, you cannot escape the fact that they both KILL indiscriminately when used by someone who has no control over themselves or contempt for others.
The loss of liberty here would really be just an after thought (at least for me) if I truly felt that this argument to enact a nation wide ban on certain guns was really going to do anything good at all other than end in another failure for our nation in an attempt to slate a death rate in an increasingly chaotic world. As well as a waste of time. The end result of previous attempts would not suggest that it's going work out much differently a second time around.
If cities, towns or states had reasonable resources to do so, what would be the most logical response or action to take if you found that crime and random acts of violence were increasing in your town/counties? You'd think they'd want to beef up our forces, no? Why is the thought of armed security in a school such a hard thing to fathom? Some of you guy's have said yourselves that times change. Given the current state of things in the world today with some many nations, people struggling. Guns, drugs, violence in the streets...you'd think it would be a pretty logical response? If we wish to protect ourselves, our kids or whomever, we are going to have to pay one way or another. That seems to be a given.

 

[darthtang aw]

Alcohol has been prohibited...didn't work. And alcohol is a beverage that is used to hydrate, enjoy, used for religious purposes, etc. And the use of alcohol is limited by law.
Why is it that the only argument in favor of assault weapons is to evade and talk about other products? Could it be that you have no real argument to support the sale of assault weapons on the market?
Whether you want to evade or not, an analysis of this legal issue is not dependant upon the government's treatment of completely different product. I've given you the legal standard but if I have to repeat it I'm going to start charging hourly.
Now go ahead and make your first argument that your need for this weapon outweighs the public interest in limiting bad people's access to them. If you can't make this argument (and only this argument) persuasively then you lose the debate.
Any other product you mention has and will continue to be subject to the same analysis in the courts based on it's own unique factors.
The use and sale of assault weapons are also limited by law. So that argument does not stand. It is a wash. Hydrate with alcohol? Really? You do realize that dehydration is a side effect of alcohol and thus why hangovers occur? Enjoyment from alcohol...ok equivalent to enjoyment of shooting 30 rounds through an AR-15. Religious purposes...This I will give you, hovvever the law already covers this and allows for it......I am not saying all alcohol should be banned...Just the type of alcohol that is attributed to the most horrific deaths. After all...this is the same argument for assault weapons, not the banning of all guns, just these scarier guns. So lets not ban all alcohol, just beer. (Not that I condone the banning of alcohol, just showing the similarity between these two products.)
However I am willing to play at this game.
You have asked me to state why I "need" this item. I must ask a question first in order to answer this.
This all depends on what your definition of "need" is.
Darth (Clinton) Tang

 

[crimzy]

The use and sale of assault weapons are also limited by law. So that argument does not stand. It is a wash. Hydrate with alcohol? Really? You do realize that dehydration is a side effect of alcohol and thus why hangovers occur? Enjoyment from alcohol...ok equivalent to enjoyment of shooting 30 rounds through an AR-15. Religious purposes...This I will give you, hovvever the law already covers this and allows for it......I am not saying all alcohol should be banned...Just the type of alcohol that is attributed to the most horrific deaths. After all...this is the same argument for assault weapons, not the banning of all guns, just these scarier guns. So lets not ban all alcohol, just beer. (Not that I condone the banning of alcohol, just showing the similarity between these two products.)
However I am willing to play at this game.
You have asked me to state why I "need" this item. I must ask a question first in order to answer this.
This all depends on what your definition of "need" is.
Darth (Clinton) Tang
I now see your point. Why would we prohibit assault weapons when water is still legal???

 

[reefraff]

The previous ban had no effect on crimes. And do you notice that they are trying to push something though at light speed while they can play on people's raw emotions?

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505610
The previous ban had no effect on crimes. And do you notice that they are trying to push something though at light speed while they can play on people's raw emotions?
And how long has this already been in the works?
I can read the conspiracy theorist headlines now "Inside government officials responsible for the attack on elementary school in order to push through laws designed to line the pockets of their supporters in an effort to solidify their power".

 

[darthtang aw]

The water statement is ridiculous and is being used to make light of my point. Every living mammal needs water to survive. How does that compare to alcohol and guns?

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505660
The water statement is ridiculous and is being used to make light of my point. Every living mammal needs water to survive. How does that compare to alcohol and guns?
What does alcohol have to do with guns? I guess it's the same argument that connects cigarettes, drugs, junk food, swimming pools or any other product to assault rifles... they can all kill people so either ban them all or allow them all right. It's called a slippery slope and it's an argument that can be made when you can't really address the issue at hand.
I like the water picture... it highlights your point (or maybe just illuminates the ridiculousness of the logic)...

 

[slice]

The original murder was done with a jawbone of an ass. It could have been done with a rock or a pointy stick.
I've posted before that to outlaw murder we must eliminate criminal intent. Good luck with that....
Or ban thumbs, or maybe trigger fingers. Maybe the french had it right when they severed the middle fingers of English archers and gave birth
to the middle finger salute along with the curse: "Pluck Yew!"
-yeah, I know, just an urban legend, but I like it....

 

[2quills]

What does alcohol have to do with guns?  I guess it's the same argument that connects cigarettes, drugs, junk food, swimming pools or any other product to assault rifles... they can all kill people so either ban them all or allow them all right.  It's called a slippery slope and it's an argument that can be made when you can't really address the issue at hand. 
I like the water picture... it highlights your point (or maybe just illuminates the ridiculousness of the logic)...
I'd put in a call to the ATF. Perhaps someone there could better explain how the two are inextricably linked.
Not to be an ass here but your apples to oranges logic doesnt make a whole lot of sense in this case. They may look and taste different but it's kind of hard to escape the fact that they're both still fruit. Just like guns and alcohol are equally capable of destroying life indescrimanantly.
Being ok with one and not the other is simply non other than hipocracy at it's finest. Especially when the other one destroys more lives.
That's what this all boils down to, no? Saving lives?

 

[darthtang aw]

What does alcohol have to do with guns?  I guess it's the same argument that connects cigarettes, drugs, junk food, swimming pools or any other product to assault rifles... they can all kill people so either ban them all or allow them all right.  It's called a slippery slope and it's an argument that can be made when you can't really address the issue at hand. 
I like the water picture... it highlights your point (or maybe just illuminates the ridiculousness of the logic)...
The argument made for and against guns or certain types of guns is based off "need" and their destructive power. The argument also goes they are strictly used and meant for killing. This is all they do (however they do save lives at the same time).
I asked for the word "need" to be defined.
The argument is to save lives. I only use alcohol because alcohol falls into the exact same category as guns. Very little perceived good, and not "needed". If I have to defend my right to own a firearm based off of need.....then the argument is lost in all cases. It isn't about need. It never has been. I explained the advantageous of an ar-15 in a separate thread. as well did a few other people. Our reasons were dismissed because they didn't fit someone's definition of "need".
So I ask again. Define the word "need" in such a manner that the definition will equally apply to alcohol. Alcohol kills far more than guns in this country .Even the innocent.
So define "need" and your requested debate can continue.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505613
And how long has this already been in the works?
I can read the conspiracy theorist headlines now "Inside government officials responsible for the attack on elementary school in order to push through laws designed to line the pockets of their supporters in an effort to solidify their power".

I don't know about something being in the works. I just know how the particular batch of Democraps currently in control like to take advantage of a tragedy.
I do believe fast and furious was about pushing the anti gun narrative. Why else would this administration re start a failed program with even fewer checks and resources than it had when previously failed?

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505715
I don't know about something being in the works. I just know how the particular batch of Democraps currently in control like to take advantage of a tragedy.
I do believe fast and furious was about pushing the anti gun narrative. Why else would this administration re start a failed program with even fewer checks and resources than it had when previously failed?
Makes it seem like they are doing good to some folks even if the data doesn't support it. And ofcorse if you had an agenda like this to begin with then what better time to throw it out there then right now?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505716
Makes it seem like they are doing good to some folks even if the data doesn't support it. And ofcorse if you had an agenda like this to begin with then what better time to throw it out there then right now?
It's my issue with liberalism in general. It emotion based in most cases. Basing important decisions on emotions generally doesn't work out well.

 

[crimzy]

The argument made for and against guns or certain types of guns is based off "need" and their destructive power. The argument also goes they are strictly used and meant for killing. This is all they do (however they do save lives at the same time).
I asked for the word "need" to be defined.
The argument is to save lives. I only use alcohol because alcohol falls into the exact same category as guns. Very little perceived good, and not "needed". If I have to defend my right to own a firearm based off of need.....then the argument is lost in all cases. It isn't about need. It never has been. I explained the advantageous of an ar-15 in a separate thread. as well did a few other people. Our reasons were dismissed because they didn't fit someone's definition of "need".
So I ask again. Define the word "need" in such a manner that the definition will equally apply to alcohol. Alcohol kills far more than guns in this country .Even the innocent.
So define "need" and your requested debate can continue.
Define "need" any way you want. It doesn't even specifically have to use the word "need"... use want, desire or any other word you want... just do a real analysis... balance your right to have an assault weapon with the public interest in limiting their access. But the catch is that the court doesn't decide every issue in one case. Alcohol, drugs and junk food will have their day in court. All you can do is address the challenge to the item at hand. And go...

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505670
The original murder was done with a jawbone of an ass. It could have been done with a rock or a pointy stick.
I've posted before that to outlaw murder we must eliminate criminal intent. Good luck with that....
Or ban thumbs, or maybe trigger fingers. Maybe the french had it right when they severed the middle fingers of English archers and gave birth
to the middle finger salute along with the curse: "Pluck Yew!"
-yeah, I know, just an urban legend, but I like it....
They used a jawbone because they didn't have a weapon that shot 30 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger. Now they justify that 30-round weapon because they like to drop $25 to shoot some dangerous target in the time span of around 5 minutes (If they take their time to actually aim at that inanimate object). At least when I spend $25 on a bottle of Jack Black, that will last me at least a couple of months.