The current system gets stranger the more I think about it. Let's say my hobby is owning rattlesnakes, or other venomous reptiles. My options for owning rattlesnakes in California are a lot more restricted than owning semi-automatic guns with large magazines. Seriously? Yes, WTF. And it looks like there is more federal paperwork to mail a Gila Monster from coast to coast than an assault rifle. Again, how in God's name did we get to this place? A Gila Monster has to chew on you for a while to poison you, and at its worst, we're talking one person killed per 30 minutes, if it's venom supply holds up. But that's harder to move across state lines than something that can kill 30 people in a few minutes? Yes, I do have a new analogy.
You can call it ignorant if you like. The proof is in the pudding, which has been prepared, baked and set on the table. What happened in Australia is plain fact. Sorry if it doesn't fit your argument - but that's all I'm putting on the table here. The gun regulations in Australia worked. My simple suggestion is that IF such a system worked in one country THEN it may well work in another... I would think the onus to prove that it definitely would not work in America would be on the gun lobby. All it does is change the foot the shoe is on surely? Instead of Obama (or whomever) having to prove such a ban WOULD be effective, isn't it up to others to prove such a ban WOULD NOT be effective WHEN it has already been effective elsewhere. Again, I don't see the big deal, and I don't have raw emotion on the topic for either side - just pointing out a test case....
You really haven't though. You've blathered a lot about your "motto" and how it's so hard to keep your current "freedoms" that you can't try to win back the ones lost before you were born. (Was this a reference to the freedom to own nuclear weapons and tanks? Who knows.) So I'll make really, really easy for you- Do you believe the government should not restrict your ownership of nuclear or biological weapons? yes/no Do you believe the government has no right to prevent a criminal or mentally ill person from owning a weapon? yes/no No need to go on about mottoes, your religion, or which rodeo this is.
What exactly are you debating? I am stating an assault rifle ban is nearly pointless when handguns are the vast majority of the problem. You're comparing it to Australia's complete firearms ban. The debate isn't about how deaths related to firearms would drastically be reduced if you could somehow get Americans to give up the 2nd amendment and give up all their guns. There is no debate about it. You may as well ask Americans to give up alcohol to reduce DUI's since a very small minority of people can't drink responsibly.
Hmm... I think I was quite clear. Still not satisfied? Like I said when I said I wasn't going to link to it, you wouldn't be satisfied with my answer, so there was no point. Thanks for proving that theory valid.
I'm with you. We need to make mailing gila monsters, and owning rattlesnakes a lot easier in this country. Then the government will get my gila monster when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
r****ded government regulations are nothing new. John Stossel has made a career out of talking about these and he has some fantastic books about them. Thus the reason I don't want the government creating more regulations, because they're far more likely to screw up, than do it right.
I disagree that they screw up more than they don't. Cars having to have seat belts is a good thing. Almost all of the food safety regulations are a net positive. Most of the prescription drug and medicine regulations are a net positive. Most of the regulations that don't allow unsafe work environments, overtime without compensation, regulations against monopolies, etc. are all good ones. I prefer knowing there are standards that work most of the time at keeping the food I eat safe, the cars I drive having seat belts, the medicine I take safe, and all of that.
See the tax code, it negates many of those (by the sheer numbers). Of course there are some good and beneficial regulations, buy many simply stifle innovation and hurt the very people they're trying to protect. I'm not going to get in to a comparison about numbers, but they mess up on a ton of things, whether that's 51% is moot really. If they mess up one, that's too many. Our government is slow to adapt once regulations are in place... such as the regulations and laws regarding the internet, or as mentioned earlier, the broken tax code with giant loopholes. Since they are so slow to remove bad regulations, people like me fear giving them the power to create new ones.
Cute. And you know the will of the founding father's? As stated from the Federalist papers which were deliberately written to explain the Constitution to the populace the purpose of militia was for collective defense of the states. That most likely explains why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is. It doesn't prevent regulation of arms.
Get out of here with your historically accurate response! They obviously wanted us to have BEAR ARMS!
Spoiler <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RablPaIREkk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I don't know much about Gila monster ownership, but what do you believe the current legal ownership options to be in California for semi auto handguns with large capacity magazines?
You are actually being clear, you believe people should have as much freedom as possible, as a result you feel that individual people should be able to own Nuclear and biological weapons. You are being clear, you are a crazy person, but at least a consistent and clear crazy person. If you believe people should have as much freedom as possible, you also probably believe people should be free to kill another person. Because the evil government shouldn’t limit our freedoms. Like i said a crazy person. So i can expect that you do not have a problem with Gay marriage, and making drugs legal, since you are in favour of freedom.
