Why does that matter? you don't make any distinctions between {guns-protection} and {guns-recreational}. Why are you making that distinction with drugs?
Drugs like and narcotics play a critical role in the medical management of many medical conditions, from debilitating arthritis and nerve pain to cancer. Unethical or incompetent use of those drugs constitutes a small percentage of their total use by physicians. It doesn't mean you should leave them open and freely available to the public to use as they like.
So are you going to provide evidence?
Potentially dangerous and lethal tools should be regulated and restricted from completely open access by the general public. There are a lot of crazy and incompetent people in the general public. I can't believe I have to point that out. Not everyone is a sane patriotic American only interested in protecting their home and hearth.
Because {guns - recreational} are both legal and a protected right; recreational firearms use has been affirmed by Congress to be a lawful and desired use of firearms.
Let me know when drug use becomes a protected right.
I can walk into any Bed, Bath and Beyond and buy a 9" butcher knife. I can walk into any Walmart and buy a hunting knife. I can walk into any Lowe's and buy a hammer or crowbar. I can walking into any REI and buy rope. Those are all "potentially dangerous and lethal tools". What regulations do you proposed to restrict from completely open access by the general public. Knives, blunt instruments and improvised hanging/suffocation tools account for 15,000 intentional deaths per year.
Your analogy with knives and hammers is as ridiculous as my analogy with nuclear weapons. Just because you have open access to kitchen knives, does that mean you have open access to nukes? Forget the nukes. Should there be no limits and regulations on who can drive a semi, just because you can walk into a Bed, Bath, and Beyond and buya a 9" butcher knife? There have to be limits. And those limits need to be constantly revisited and reevaluated as new technology becomes available. It's not an unlimited right.
We can talk about the law. But that's just a problem with our legal system. It doesn't make the analogy any less legitimate, or the need to change the law if need be any less critical or necessary. Otherwise, we have what we have now: a dysfunctional mess. Laws from the 18th century, developed for weapons and purposes that no longer exist, and which have become completely obsolete with 21st century weapons technology.
According to Randolph Roth in American Homicide, the homicide rate in colonial American was significantly higher than today's homicide rate. If you feel that the right to keep and bears arms is obsolete, see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I presume you can count to 13.
You must have a short memory. I provide evidence when asked and I made the claim first.I tire of your constant calls for evidence when you RARELY provide any yourself. You have provided it ONCE to my knowledge the entire time I have debated you
You must have a short memory. I provide evidence when asked and I made the claim first.
Doesn’t matter. The point being that weapons technology will continue to evolve. It will require constant reevaluation as we go forward. The idea that we can never have any further restrictions or regulations is ridiculous. Can you see how things can get a little ridiculous if you keep digging in and preventing the laws and regulations from keeping up with the technology? Or do you think that’s just a price we have to pay for freedom?
Doesn’t matter. The point being that weapons technology will continue to evolve. It will require constant reevaluation as we go forward. The idea that we can never have any further restrictions or regulations is ridiculous. Can you see how things can get a little ridiculous if you keep digging in and preventing the laws and regulations from keeping up with the technology? Or do you think that’s just a price we have to pay for freedom?
False dichotomy. However, you should reread Heller, Miller and especially Caetano. Technology changes do not suddenly disable Constitutional protections.
OK, these are about weapons an infantry soldier can carry. When machine gun technology first became widely available around World War I, it was considered so outrageously and ridiculously deadly that it was going to make the whole notion of warfare obsolete. Not only did not do that, now every crazy person on the street thinks they’re entitled to one as a right.
In the future, I can easily see a portable death ray type of device that you can point to a building, school, apartment complex, Mall, or other structure, and it would instantly sterilize the place of any life. Don’t dismiss search technology too readily. No one less than Nikola Tesla himself was working on such a device when he passed away , based on electromagnetic waves, to protect against aircraft attacks.
Like machine guns, such a weapon would be very useful to infantry soldiers. But would you not think that some deliberation on such a weapon to be available to the public,, should it become available, would be necessary? Or just because an infantry soldier can carry it, we should automatically and blindly just allow free access to such a weapon to the entire public with no oversight or regulation?
Doesn’t matter. The point being that weapons technology will continue to evolve. It will require constant reevaluation as we go forward. The idea that we can never have any further restrictions or regulations is ridiculous. Can you see how things can get a little ridiculous if you keep digging in and preventing the laws and regulations from keeping up with the technology? Or do you think that’s just a price we have to pay for freedom?
can you make a valid argument why honest citizens cannot own the same firearms civilian police use in our neighborhoods?OK, these are about weapons an infantry soldier can carry. When machine gun technology first became widely available around World War I, it was considered so outrageously and ridiculously deadly that it was going to make the whole notion of warfare obsolete. Not only did not do that, now every crazy person on the street thinks they’re entitled to one as a right.
In the future, I can easily see a portable death ray type of device that you can point to a building, school, apartment complex, Mall, or other structure, and it would instantly sterilize the place of any life. Don’t dismiss search technology too readily. No one less than Nikola Tesla himself was working on such a device when he passed away , based on electromagnetic waves, to protect against aircraft attacks.
Like machine guns, such a weapon would be very useful to infantry soldiers. But would you not think that some deliberation on such a weapon to be available to the public,, should it become available, would be necessary? Or just because an infantry soldier can carry it, we should automatically and blindly just allow free access to such a weapon to the entire public with no oversight or regulation?
can you make a valid argument why honest citizens cannot own the same firearms civilian police use in our neighborhoods?
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
Are all cops honest and/or sane? You should look up who committed the first mass shooting with an AR-15 is the US.
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
Yes. Because police have some screening, training, and accountability. And not all citizens are honest. Nor sane.
I agree with you in regards to both drugs and weapons. There are some drugs that are just two powerful and too dangerous to be made available to the general public such as the ones you mentioned above and then there are those drugs which can be sold over the counter and that anybody can buy. Of course, even over the counter drugs can be dangerous and even deadly if not used properly. By the same token there are some weapons that are too powerful and dangerous to be made available to the general public. Fully functional army tanks, fully armed fighter planes, rockets, high grade explosives, nuclear bombs, ect. Then there are weapons that are and should be made available to the general public. Any kind of gun that you can find at a gun shop in a gun friendly state.Sure. But who is carrying them and using them is what makes the difference.
Not everyone should be carrying weapons. There are some things only trained and screened professionals should carry. Just like not everyone should be giving out drugs, only trained and screened professionals. There are some drugs that are OK to make available to the public. That's why we have such a large over-the-counter market. But open up powerful and potentially dangerous drugs like chemotherapy drugs, heart medicines, powerful antibiotics, etc... to the general public? Nah, bad idea. That's not freedom. That's just stupid.
Otherwise you have what we have now: a dysfunctional mess.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?