U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:17 PM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,785,811 times
Reputation: 25421

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
It's not that I enjoy insulting other posters.... and it has nothing to do with whether I agree with you or not.

I just get sick of people pulling "facts" out of their backsides and using the same tired red herring and straw man arguments over and over again.


If people are going to advocate stripping a Constitutional right from law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, the very least they can do is educate themselves on the facts that they are attempting to use to justify that position.


A great example is when people try to use the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument as an analogy to placing limits on firearms.

First if all, there is no law against yelling fire in a crowded theater.

And even if there was, it would not ban using the word "fire" anytime, anyplace.
You'd still he able to yell "fire" at the top of your lungs on your own property.


Banning a certain type of gun from ownership by the public would be analogous to banning the word "fire" from being spoken at all....even in your own home.....not just in a theater.
People use the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument just to point out that we accept other limitations on our freedoms. And while there's no law against it per se, you can't argue that you're protected by the 1st Amendment if you yell it and are arrested for creating a public disturbance.

It may surprise you to learn that I do support the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that it means that individuals have the right to own every firearm ever invented. I think you can limit the types of weapons owned without sacrificing the Amendment. Why doesn't anyone advocate for the right to own bombs and grenades? Surely those could be used to defend one's home and I bet they're a lot of fun to play with. And they would effective if the Government ever came after you, which is, I think, the basis of the 2nd amendment.

The point is, we all accept limits on our freedoms. You're not even supposed to own firecrackers in the city limits (at least where I live), but no one complains about that, because we recognize that they create a danger.

 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:27 PM
 
Location: MS
4,280 posts, read 4,068,253 times
Reputation: 1486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
People use the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument just to point out that we accept other limitations on our freedoms. And while there's no law against it per se, you can't argue that you're protected by the 1st Amendment if you yell it and are arrested for creating a public disturbance.

It may surprise you to learn that I do support the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that it means that individuals have the right to own every firearm ever invented. I think you can limit the types of weapons owned without sacrificing the Amendment. Why doesn't anyone advocate for the right to own bombs and grenades? Surely those could be used to defend one's home and I bet they're a lot of fun to play with. And they would effective if the Government ever came after you, which is, I think, the basis of the 2nd amendment.

The point is, we all accept limits on our freedoms. You're not even supposed to own firecrackers in the city limits (at least where I live), but no one complains about that, because we recognize that they create a danger.
You may get a medal if there is actually a fire and you save a bunch a people.

At the time of ratification of the 2nd Amendment, people owned cannons. Why can't I own current field artillery? I have a place to shoot. I'm just saving up and waiting to see if one pops up on Gun Broker.

I do not accept limits to my freedom. I should be able to exercise my freedom up to a point where it might infringe on someone else's freedom.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Dublin, OH
2,379 posts, read 3,415,309 times
Reputation: 1486
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Lol...data?

Don't hold your breath. The coming-of-voting-age generation is much more conservative than the politically divided (note: not liberally monolithic) millennials. The most liberal generations are generation X and up, the boomers now entering their golden years. After they go, White politics will be noticeably more conservative. Good luck trying to get minorities to "peaceably" disarm largely conservative Whites. Even if it could be done legally, it won't be able to be done in a practical sense. This is especially true in a world where ethnic division and ethnopolitical terrorism is increasing and making people feel under attack to an ever greater degree.
Have you seen the kids from Parkland leading this #neveragain movement. Most are white...they are very open minded and are very much for major gun control.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,323 posts, read 535,264 times
Reputation: 1078
Gun owners should buy gun insurance just like any car owner must buy car insurance.

Nikolas Cruz bought the AR-15 legally when he was 18. Would he be able to afford to pay insurance for a sport car when he was 18? Most likely not. If there were gun insurance requirement, he might not able to acquire the AR-15.

If gun insurance is mandatory, the families of the 19 victims will at least be financially compensated. And the private insurance company will do a much better job than any government agencies in checking the background of any gun buyers.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,143 posts, read 19,149,106 times
Reputation: 14007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Lee View Post
Gun owners should buy gun insurance just like any car owner must buy car insurance.

Nikolas Cruz bought the AR-15 legally when he was 18. Would he be able to afford to pay insurance for a sport car when he was 18? Most likely not. If there were gun insurance requirement, he might not able to acquire the AR-15.

If gun insurance is mandatory, the families of the 19 victims will at least be financially compensated. And the private insurance company will do a much better job than any government agencies in checking the background of any gun buyers.
Like how forcing everyone to buy Health Insurance worked so well?

Besides, car insurance only works because cars are registered. Registering guns is a No-No to gun owners... that's how they get taken away.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
2,717 posts, read 1,174,345 times
Reputation: 1683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Lee View Post
Gun owners should buy gun insurance just like any car owner must buy car insurance.

Nikolas Cruz bought the AR-15 legally when he was 18. Would he be able to afford to pay insurance for a sport car when he was 18? Most likely not. If there were gun insurance requirement, he might not able to acquire the AR-15.

If gun insurance is mandatory, the families of the 19 victims will at least be financially compensated. And the private insurance company will do a much better job than any government agencies in checking the background of any gun buyers.
I won't be surprised if the premiums for those kinds of policies would be pretty expensive. If you killed someone with that weapon, oh man someone could sue you for 2M easily.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:45 PM
 
Location: San Diego
34,990 posts, read 32,005,898 times
Reputation: 19462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38 View Post
Remember that Simpsons episode where a lizard infestation kills off the pigeon population in Springfield?

So the plan to then get rid of the lizards is to bring in snakes to eat them and then bring in snake-eating gorillas to get rid of the snakes?

That is the right's reaction about guns any time there's a mass shooting.

Kids have guns? Let's give school security guards guns then. Then, let's give teachers guns in case that doesn't stop a shooter or the security guard goes postal. Then, we give the police bigger guns in case the teachers start shooting kids. And then...

Or, conversely, turn every school into a clone of the CIA HQ building for security in getting in and out, never mind the logistics of that one, with all the various different classes, after school activities, parents picking up and dropping off their kids, etc.

So we cant have schools with proper supplies and whatnot but we can provide everyone with guns and ammo and training and safes and... I'm all for safe use of firearms, but we can barely pay school teachers enough. I mean, goddamn it, they even have to pay for school supplies. And here we are, saying they can get a gun, and take some training on how to use a gun safely, in a room full of kids, in an active shooter scenario ? What really qualifies Brenda the social studies teacher to shoot in a room full of panicked students?

Maybe we should just arm the honor roll students? They've got a future so they're less likely to shoot up the place, and it'll encourage good grades. Added bonus, it scales difficulty for the shooters. Sure, you can still walk in and blast a remedial English class, but an AP Physics class is gonna take some effort!

No, sorry, the NRA has had decades to come up with a workable solution and they have abdicated responsibility. They show no remorse, nor any indication that they even WANT to solve the problems. The coming ****storm of a reaction is going to be very interesting to watch play out.
Blaming the tiny % of firearm owners that make up the NRA for mass shootings is freakin hilarious.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Honolulu
1,323 posts, read 535,264 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
Like how forcing everyone to buy Health Insurance worked so well?

Besides, car insurance only works because cars are registered. Registering guns is a No-No to gun owners... that's how they get taken away.
Gun insurance, like car insurance, is mandatory only if it inflicts damage to 3rd party, i.e. personal and property damage. If it is related to suicide, it is not covered or non-compulsory.

Of course, gun owners who obtained those guns illegally won't buy. But the mass murderers like Nikolas Cruz, Devin Kelley, Stephan Paddock, ...etc all bought their guns legally.

Common sense. Would any insurance company sell a policy to Paddock who legally bought 33 weapons?
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Central Mexico and Central Florida
7,089 posts, read 3,436,914 times
Reputation: 10136
trump just banned bump stocks. Is this the slippery slope?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8c011caa98d3
Quote:
President Trump said Tuesday afternoon that he signed a memorandum directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to craft regulations to ban “bump stocks” and other devices that turn semi-automatic firearms into automatic weapons.
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,179 posts, read 15,701,758 times
Reputation: 9830
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
Unfortunately for you, your straw man can be flipped against you. Take away guns...stabbings...take a way knives...bombings...take away pressure cookers...arson...take away matches...stonings.....I think you get the point.
But here's the thing, this is a horrible strawman. See stabbings have happened despite guns, but mostly not at school, though people with knives have gotten suspended. Also arson already happens but typically with abandoned places like old retail locations rather than new places like schools, unless someone is really stupid and has a grudge.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top