Religion of peace strikes again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Man oh man...

I agree, banning possession isn't the same as forcing you to do something...

But I'll say two things..

(1) those two things are similar in this regard...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd. No law is perfect. Laws against murder, don't prevent 100% of murders, but it would be asinine to use that as an excuse to do away with anti-murder laws. But if the law does some good, and is constitutional, it may be worth enacting. Saving some lives isn't as good as saving all lives, but it's better than nothing.

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd.

I've actually never heard anyone say this....

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

you keep making stuff up

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you keep making stuff up

No I'm not. Read the thread on the Vegas shooting. Read TDF's post #31 here, where he says that bans on bump stocks won't stop everyone from having them - once again, if the law isn't perfect, that means it's a bad law?

I don't have media research data at my fingertips. But I listen to what people are saying. Many, many people who oppose gun laws, use this logic. In my opinion, it's flawed logic. I doubt there's a single law on our books that's 100% effective.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.

"This really belongs in another thread"

I agree. I didn't insert it here, someone else did.

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.