What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

misterman said:

He said "the government should just stay the hell out of the way and let people live their lives."

Click to expand...

Flea said:

Oh lordie. You are taking it out of context. Get real already. Goobie is right, your comment is not relevant at all. The government is there to protect our rights, and those rights are life, liberty and property. If someone shoots you, the government intervenes. Do I really have to spell all of this out for you. If you are truly a literal junkie, then life must be difficult, I tell you.

Click to expand...

misterman said:

My comment was completely relevant.

If someone shoots you, the government intervenes - but you're already dead!

So if the government wants to protect my right to life, it's perfectly appropriate to do so with preventive measures such as trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who might shoot me.

Now, you can argue that those measures are ineffective or unconstitutional, but they aren't inappropriate for protecting my right to life.

Click to expand...

misterman said:

My comment was completely relevant.

If someone shoots you, the government intervenes - but you're already dead!

So if the government wants to protect my right to life, it's perfectly appropriate to do so with preventive measures such as trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who might shoot me.

Now, you can argue that those measures are ineffective or unconstitutional, but they aren't inappropriate for protecting my right to life.

Click to expand...

American said:

And since you never know who might shoot you, it's prudent to remove all weapons. :roll:

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

I believe M2 is what we call a contrarian--someone who wants to argue for the sake of arguing and after he runs out of legitimate arguments and has been given the "black knight treatment" (King Arthur: what are you gonna do-bleed on me?) he continues with increasingly inane bits of nonsense just to keep arguing

Click to expand...

misterman said:

My comment was completely relevant.

If someone shoots you, the government intervenes - but you're already dead!

So if the government wants to protect my right to life, it's perfectly appropriate to do so with preventive measures such as trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who might shoot me.

Now, you can argue that those measures are ineffective or unconstitutional, but they aren't inappropriate for protecting my right to life.

Click to expand...

Flea said:

It is not relevant unless you are prepared to remove all knives and forks that might be used to kill, in addition to ninjitsu masters that can flick their wrist and kill me just as easily. How is the government going to regulate the toilet water level that I thrust your head into as I kill you/a person? How about the hotsauce that I, well, I think you get the point. Gun regulation arguments are ridiculous in that people will simply kill others with swords or bows or staffs or spoons. Where does it end? Crazy murderers are the problem, not the weapons. So, I argue that your point is still, completely and totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Flea said:

It is not relevant unless you are prepared to remove all knives and forks that might be used to kill, in addition to ninjitsu masters that can flick their wrist and kill me just as easily. How is the government going to regulate the toilet water level that I thrust your head into as I kill you/a person? How about the hotsauce that I, well, I think you get the point. Gun regulation arguments are ridiculous in that people will simply kill others with swords or bows or staffs or spoons. Where does it end? Crazy murderers are the problem, not the weapons. So, I argue that your point is still, completely and totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Goshin said:

Exactly. You have countries today (I'll be nice and not name names) who arrest people for having a Swiss Army knife with a 2" blade in their pockets, who regulate or ban swords and long knives, and so on. Those nations still have murder, and many of them have more general crime than the USA.

Click to expand...

misterman said:

Yes, you need to name their names, with their murder rates please.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Playing silly games I see

CLinton Bragged that because of the Brady Bill 100,000 felons were unable to get guns

It is akin to Clinton putting guards at several thousand banks and bragging those guards stopped 100,000 bank robberies even if the robbers robbed other banks at the same rate as they did before the guards were hired.


Here is what really happened. Many of the people who were denied properly were people who had minor league felonies from years ago-often charges that were no longer felonies such as weed possession others had stuff like dishonorable discharges. Many others were just moronic felons who figured their old records couldn't be found.

In other words, the Brady bill did nothing to make anyone safer (though one left wing study did Find that the Brady bill waiting period did cause suicides among say 55-60 year olds to slightly decrease)

NOW if everyone who lied on the federal form got say 3 years for perjury, a fair amount of crime probably would have been prevented.

The fact is if you merely deny a felon a legal purchase and they plan on using the gun for a crime, you have accomplished nothing

Its the concept of inelastic demand vs elastic demand

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Do you make such requests because

1) you don't like his point and you cannot refute it but you feel a need to attack it

2) you know the answer but want to stall delay or divert

3) you have no idea how to use google or you are happy being ignorant?

Click to expand...

repeter said:

Or, he wants to see the data, because he can't find it/doesn't need to find it because he doesn't have the burden of proof?

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

some stuff is so obvious that it is clear to me that what I said is going on

anyone who wants to engage in debating gun restrictions is presumed to know the basic framework

It would be like arguing abortion and not knowing that Roe v wade wiped away state bans of abortion

Click to expand...

repeter said:

I've heard that making an assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

arguing with people who know a subject inside and out when you don't tends to lead to getting fkd up in the argument

Click to expand...

repeter said:

I'm going to say it again, making an assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

platitudes have a limited use

Click to expand...

repeter said:

I'll stop as soon as you stop making assumptions.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

you are assuming I am making assumptions

try again

are you bored and trying to pick a fight?

or is your cable tv out for the night?

Click to expand...

Goobieman said:

The failure to prosecute negates the argument of a compelling state interest.
Thus, inconsistent.

Perhaps you just dont understand what 'compllling state interest' means.


Nowhere near a valid comaprison, unless:
-There is a compelling state interest in not letting people in w/o an invite
-On that basis, everyone's rights are infringed
-Trying to get in w/o an invite is a felony

Noen of these things are true, so the comparison fails.

Its ACTUALLY like, as noted before, creating laws against drunk driving, specifiying mandatory penalties for those that do, infringing on the rights of every driver on the road, and then refusing to prosecute those that are caught.

Click to expand...

Goobieman said:

You clearly did not read the post, as the answer is there, direct and plain as day.

Click to expand...

Cilogy said:

So ... don't ban land mines and bazookas? :neutral:

Click to expand...