Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a bad analogy. It's an inaccurate fantasy though.
Drivers must be registered with the state, they must pass tests and be of a certain age before assuming the responsibility of sharing the roadways with other drivers. If they break the law they can have their license revoked. Not a bad idea at all if applied towards gun owners.
The theory that the cops would come and take away your DL because of your neighbor's actions is silly. There would be no reason for this, thus would not have much support. MOST people who believe in gun control, gun registration, etc, do NOT believe (contrary to some people's paranoid fantasies) that no one should own a gun.
There are those who believe that everyone should turn in or have their guns taken away, but that thought process is of the same level of people on the other side who believe EVERYONE should have a right to own a gun.
1. Unconstitutional. Obama isn't stupid enough to do something like that.
2. The Democrats would lose the Senate in 2014 if he did....and Obama and the dems are again not stupid enough to do something like that. Why do you think they didn't push legislation nationally hard after Sandy Hook?
The US Senate makes any serious gun legislation an impossibility due to the rural state composition.
I think a far more realistic argument would be to say that the authorities then told you that you had to hand over all your alcohol, because it was now illegal.
But really its a silly comparison to gun violence. Most folks don't want to "grab your guns". Even the california semiauto ban doesn't go to peoples homes and "grab their guns", just prevents future sales within the state. If you're moving to california from another state, you're free to bring your semiauto rifles with you, just have to register them. And, if you are moving to the state, you know the ban on semi auto purchase is in place, so its your fault for moving there.
I haven't heard to many people, even in the liberal side of the media, suggesting we have a gun problem or that we should somehow outlaw guns over this. The guy took a shotgun, killed armed security, took their weapons, and killed more people.
The guard was the weak point in the system. I feel terrible for his/her family, but the guard did not do their duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
No one is proposing a prohibition on guns, so much for that analogy.
the problem you guys have is a lack of vision, and you are not seeing what the future plans the gun grabbers have. as i have posted many times before, it starts out innocently enough, we need some restrictions on guns, be it a tax, preventing reimportation of firearms the US supplied to its allies, but are now obsolete for the military. then its we need to restrict certain gun from being sold because they are evil weapons that criminals like to use all the time(talking about so called assault weapons here). then its lets ban cheap guns, then its lets ban semi autos, then revolvers, ultimately its you dont really need that muzzle loading black powder rifle do you?
its called incementalism, and it has worked every where it has been tried. remember when virtually no one cared if someone smoked in a public building? those days are long gone now thanks to incrementalism.
the problem you guys have is a lack of vision, and you are not seeing what the future plans the gun grabbers have. as i have posted many times before, it starts out innocently enough, we need some restrictions on guns, be it a tax, preventing reimportation of firearms the US supplied to its allies, but are now obsolete for the military. then its we need to restrict certain gun from being sold because they are evil weapons that criminals like to use all the time(talking about so called assault weapons here). then its lets ban cheap guns, then its lets ban semi autos, then revolvers, ultimately its you dont really need that muzzle loading black powder rifle do you?
its called incementalism, and it has worked every where it has been tried. remember when virtually no one cared if someone smoked in a public building? those days are long gone now thanks to incrementalism.
Remember back when they took away everyone's ability to smoke in their own homes, and outside? No. Because it hasn't happened.
See, the smoking bans in buildings made sense because there are people who are allergic to smoke, there are asthmatics who are effected by smoke, there are simple facts that second hand smoke is damaging to people's health. BUT even though "they" said you can no longer smoke inside public buildings, you are welcome to smoke outside, or in your private home.
See this is where "incrementalism" fails, it's where ALL slippery slope arguments fail miserably. We have the ability to draw the line.
Gun registration, and some restriction does not lead to the foregone conclusion of banning all guns, anymore than banning prostitution makes it illegal to meet someone at a bar and have a one night stand.
I think a far more realistic argument would be to say that the authorities then told you that you had to hand over all your alcohol, because it was now illegal.
But really its a silly comparison to gun violence. Most folks don't want to "grab your guns". Even the california semiauto ban doesn't go to peoples homes and "grab their guns", just prevents future sales within the state. If you're moving to california from another state, you're free to bring your semiauto rifles with you, just have to register them. And, if you are moving to the state, you know the ban on semi auto purchase is in place, so its your fault for moving there.
What you fail to realize is that "prevent future sales" is the same as taking guns away.
What happens when one of your guns breaks, becomes dysfunctional, etc. and then you are "prevented" from buying a new one to replace it? You have just lost your broken gun because it is not replaceable.
When that happens several times over, suddenly the number of guns has diminished significantly.
What is the difference between a significant diminishment of an item when it comes to either taking it away explicitly, or taking it away by making it impossible to replace? Either way the end result is the same - less people have the item.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
