justginger
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,712
Al, the problem is that there are a lot of weirdos. Innocent, will never harm a fly, shy, quiet, likes ultra violent movies, reads gun magazines, lives in their parents' basement weirdos. You can't dob people in for being weird. Every teenage boy would end up in juvenile detention for mouthing off about getting revenge or empty threats of killing a sports rival. What you CAN do is make it impossible for them to obtain 4 weapons and 6000 rounds of ammunition within a matter of months. Is that an unreasonable goal?
You are amazingly passionate about this subject, which I respect because I understand your point of view regarding the loss of personal freedoms. However...no society is a free for all. Well, no society that any rational person wants to be a part of. There are speed limits. Various types of drugs are illegal. Have you read the Patriot Act - that marked the end of most personal freedoms previously enjoyed by Americans. Censorship happens. Children are required to be vaccinated to attend school.
Rights are upheld and protected so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, correct? I personally think that the right to purchase automatic weapons, for which I can think of no PRACTICAL use (beyond having one just to have one), does not fall in that category. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of countless individuals have been snuffed out due to these weapons. Until you can present a reason that the average American would want with an automatic weapon, the 'loss of personal freedom' by outlawing them is akin to the loss of freedom by banning heroin. Though of course, at least illegal drugs kill the USERS, not the bystanders.
I would never suggest the outlawing of all guns. That's ludicrous (to me, anyway). The great majority of owners are responsible (though growing up in a small town in the Midwest, I can attest to how many of them were irresponsible in allowing their untrained children to access and use their guns, unsupervised). Want a pistol? Fine. Want a rifle? Fine. Do extensive background checks, require a decent waiting period, require a locked gun safe, have a police officer attend the home where it will be stored, and have periodic checks on them. Send a police officer around to see where the weapon is ACTUALLY stored. Is it under your bed? That's a $500 on the spot fine. In your garage? $500. In your closet? $500. In your vehicle? $500. If it's missing altogether? Find out where it is - if it's stolen and unreported, $500 fine. We need to stop allowing criminals to access weapons through LAZY, though law-abiding, citizens.
I just don't understand how a rational person could argue against the banning of automatic weapons, of which there appears to be no use except murder, and the tightening of restrictions on normal firearms. Surely any step at all, anything that would reduce the staggering number of gun deaths, is a positive step? I feel as if you're arguing a completely different point - no one wants to rid every American of their collectable, functional firearm. We simply want to lower the number that are accessible to criminals, and decrease the number of bullets spilling out of them in the case of mass murder.
You are amazingly passionate about this subject, which I respect because I understand your point of view regarding the loss of personal freedoms. However...no society is a free for all. Well, no society that any rational person wants to be a part of. There are speed limits. Various types of drugs are illegal. Have you read the Patriot Act - that marked the end of most personal freedoms previously enjoyed by Americans. Censorship happens. Children are required to be vaccinated to attend school.
Rights are upheld and protected so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, correct? I personally think that the right to purchase automatic weapons, for which I can think of no PRACTICAL use (beyond having one just to have one), does not fall in that category. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of countless individuals have been snuffed out due to these weapons. Until you can present a reason that the average American would want with an automatic weapon, the 'loss of personal freedom' by outlawing them is akin to the loss of freedom by banning heroin. Though of course, at least illegal drugs kill the USERS, not the bystanders.
I would never suggest the outlawing of all guns. That's ludicrous (to me, anyway). The great majority of owners are responsible (though growing up in a small town in the Midwest, I can attest to how many of them were irresponsible in allowing their untrained children to access and use their guns, unsupervised). Want a pistol? Fine. Want a rifle? Fine. Do extensive background checks, require a decent waiting period, require a locked gun safe, have a police officer attend the home where it will be stored, and have periodic checks on them. Send a police officer around to see where the weapon is ACTUALLY stored. Is it under your bed? That's a $500 on the spot fine. In your garage? $500. In your closet? $500. In your vehicle? $500. If it's missing altogether? Find out where it is - if it's stolen and unreported, $500 fine. We need to stop allowing criminals to access weapons through LAZY, though law-abiding, citizens.
I just don't understand how a rational person could argue against the banning of automatic weapons, of which there appears to be no use except murder, and the tightening of restrictions on normal firearms. Surely any step at all, anything that would reduce the staggering number of gun deaths, is a positive step? I feel as if you're arguing a completely different point - no one wants to rid every American of their collectable, functional firearm. We simply want to lower the number that are accessible to criminals, and decrease the number of bullets spilling out of them in the case of mass murder.
Great points!
300x240.png)