Be careful what you wish for.

[devildavid]

There was a questionable assumption made by Kirk. That was that all other rights are protected by exercise of one other right. It simply isn’t true. Rights are protected by the government and the rule of law. The government was formed to protect these rights. I have the same guarantee to rights as everyone else without the need to exercise any one particular right to protect it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The opposing ‘logic’ being: the criminal use (abuse?) of X is just cause for banning X (unless X is a knife, hammer or vehicle).

None of that helps Charlie Kirks' widow, children and parents.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Knives and hammers and cars can't kill someone 200+ yards away.

I never claimed otherwise, yet cars can be used to travel great distances.

Despite that difference, we do, in fact, regulate knives and their usage. While the US does not have national regulation, many areas:
- Ban switchblades, butterfly knives, gravity knives, etc
- Ban knives in locations like courthouses, schools, polling locations etc
- Ban knife ownership by convicted felons
- Limits on what size knives can be sold to minors
and so on.

The same is true for guns, since state laws vary to some extent.

We already have TONS of regulations on automobiles. We regulate:
- Car designs
- Mandatory safety features
- Mandatory use of safety features, like seatbelt laws
- Traffic controls, such as lights and speed limits
- Mandatory insurance
- Mandatory use of headlights
- Requirements to maintain taillights in proper order
- Laws banning DWI/DUI
- Mandatory vehicle registration
- Required license plates
- Required vehicle inspections
- Required mirrors or rear vision systems
- Driver's license required

So yeah, let's regulate firearms the same way we do autos. Universal background checks, tracking on every single transfer, unique identifiers on every firearm and bullet, limits on where they can be used, mandatory training, mandatory registration, mandatory licensing, centralized tracking, insurance requirements, magazine capacity limits.... Sounds like a good start.

Comparing an individual Constitutional right to a state issued privilege is a logical fallacy. Rights exist (unless removed/restricted by due process of law) without having to take classes, pass tests and/or pay fees, while those are commonly used to gain state issued privileges. Converting our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges is the goal (dream?) of many “gun control” proponents.

 

[Visbek]

And yet, prohibition is failing. As always.

Which prohibition?

Again, there are huge differences between prohibitions on alcohol, and prohibitions on fentanyl. In particular, the number of people using opiates is generally pretty small, and a big reason for that is because it is both illegal and culturally frowned upon.

A 2020 government study indicated that barely over 500,000 Americans used heroin in the previous 30 days. That's around 0.15% of the US population -- not zero, but prohibition of heroin is almost certainly more effective than you realize. There is also no question that legalizing heroin would significantly increase that number. It might mitigate certain harms (such as addicts using dirty needles), but would result in huge numbers of addicts.

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt35325/NSDUHFFRPDFWHTMLFiles2020/2020NSDUHFFR1PDFW102121.pdf

Say, did you ever notice that drug use is ridiculously low in Japan? Laws there are draconian, and even relatively safe drugs like marijuana are not accepted. So yeah... Prohibition definitely can work, as long as you don't set unreasonably high standards for "working."

To be clear, I don't recommend opium addiction! But I am tired of people in jail, addict robbers on the streets, warrantless searches, people treating police like the enemy, police treating the people like the enemy ...

Sigh

Those are not the ONLY ways to handle prohibition. Something as simple as mandatory methadone, or other medication-based treatments, are generally more effective than tossing people in jail.

Drug laws also don't compel violations of rights, or poor police behavior.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

So, you're making light of his death? By the way, guns don't kill people. People kill people, many times with the killers having long arrest records and yet democrats let these people right back out on the streets to commit yet more crimes. And, no, I wasn't referring to this particular case but generally speaking. Kirk was right and, if he could, he would tell you so again right now.

More NRA bullshit.

Democrats were not in control in Utah. It's a red state.

 

[Visbek]

Comparing an individual Constitutional right to a state issued privilege is a logical fallacy.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[CLAX1911]

Quote, Mr. Charlie Kirk:

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

Regards, Stay safe 'n well . . . informed.

The ability to swim in a public pool means that some cool debts are acceptable. The ability to travel anywhere on the public roadway means that traffic fatalities are acceptable if they weren't we would stop these things.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then why did you bring it up?

I brought up other weapons used (abused?) to commit homicide in post #3. BTW, the OP had nothing to do with drugs and you went off topic in post #19.

 

[bythoughts]

There is also no question that legalizing heroin would significantly increase that number. It might mitigate certain harms (such as addicts using dirty needles), but would result in huge numbers of addicts.

There are lots of drugs they never bothered to prohibit that people aren't using. The original "Reefer Madness" was a mix of cannabis and Datura inoxia. They banned the cannabis - which back then, FBN agents complained they couldn't recognize - and it became the biggest thing ever. They neglected to ban the datura, so it never took off. When you ban a thing, you create a monopoly structure for whoever buys off the cops. It's very much the same as issuing a patent for it.

The Chinese were using a mix of tobacco and opium. They banned the opium, but for the most part left the tobacco alone, so opium is what ravaged them.

 

[Deuce]

So, you're making light of his death? By the way, guns don't kill people. People kill people, many times with the killers having long arrest records and yet democrats let these people right back out on the streets to commit yet more crimes. And, no, I wasn't referring to this particular case but generally speaking. Kirk was right and, if he could, he would tell you so again right now.

Liberals let people out? You mean our system of justice lets people out?

What, you want life imprisonment for low level crimes? I don't understand. Why shouldn't people be let out after their sentence?