Tytler focused on Athenian democracy.
And good on him. I'm focusing on modern democratic models and noting that the gun laws I advocate have made populations safer without sacrificing civil liberty or establishing tyranny.
Don't forget, if guns are ever taken, they are never given back.
Actually there was a ban on some before and it lapsed. Those guns came back. That said, I'd hope a better series of laws and the recognition of the citizenry that would go something like, "You know what we haven't had much of in a long while? A schoolyard, church, park, concert, etc., turned into a shooting gallery...getting rid of those ARs was a great idea."
Even for a thousand years. But if we have those guns when it does happen, even in 1000 years, then there will be less bloodshed.
Who knows what anything will look like in a thousand years. But I'm all for saving lives in the next thousand days. A thing we can and should do, because there's just no rational point to not doing it.
You don't understand what an elitist is.
Sure I do. And quit telling me I'm ignorant, you elitist you.
And there it is. An elitist isn't defined as someone who judges.
Thank goodness I didn't set that out as a definition then...but an elitist necessarily judges himself and/or his group superior to others.
It's someone who won't listen to reasonable arguments people he believes to be his lessors.
Now you're just making it up, which is funny given your attempt at complaint.
Such as doubling down when you were shown to have weak statistics.
I know you believe that's what happened. I accept that you genuinely believe that happened. And it makes me a little sad that you believe that happened, because it didn't.
Great, so if we all keep our guns and use them only for self defense you will take the punishment for us if the prosecutor doesn't use his discretion. Excuse me if I'm not reassured.
What Yor did was try to cobble the worst possible case for prosecuting someone for having a weapon they understand is illegal to keep and then confuse the response to that scenario with the way the rule should look.
A law that doesn't allow for mitigation in recognition of exceptional circumstances isn't much of a law. I doubt a prosecutor would do more than confiscate the weapon and have her plea for probation.
Unless the quiet enjoyment of someone's property is declared illegal. Then it should be interrupted by the state in order to save lives. I'm just following your logic.
The state may, for a legitimate reason, interrupt your possession of property, may work restraints on the exercise of right, but the level of scrutiny is extraordinary.
And also, wherever guns are registered the authorities are allowed to go into homes according to your logic, because they will have probable cause.
Wait. So your hypothetical involves someone who registers a weapon he knows is illegal? Because both of those would be coming in together, law wise.
lain: Okay, morons will absolutely run into trouble.
No. I said rape. Try again.
I know what you said. I answered on that already. I was trying to make your position more of a parallel.
In that case that woman can avoid rape by accepting the money.
I'm just not going to legitimize the idea that rape is in any meaningful sense an appropriate parallel here.
You've yet to show any surety of a positive effect.
Australia says otherwise. So does every European democracy.
Not only will there be more death when you take away innocent people's guns used for defense,
False premise. I'm not denying anyone the ability to defend themselves with a weapon. I'm denying the rationality of suggesting that an AR should be that weapon.
You said the guns you were confiscating were a small percentage.
I haven't argued for confiscating guns at all.
But semi-autos, by conservative estimates, are 40%-60% of guns in circulation.
Well, we're speaking about ARs, though I'd like to see all semi-automatics off the shelves. And ARs aren't anything like that as a portion of the market.
If you want to claim you are only confiscating AR or AK style guns, then whatever defines them will be changed to whatever semi-auto is allowed.
And yet we did a bit of it without that happening before and for a while. No, it's not really that hard to define the size of magazines and the particulars of a semi-automatic rifle. And if you try to affix a stock to a semi-automatic pistol you'd be violating a law that was written tightly enough.
Which brings up your high-cap magazine ban. Since magazines are trivial to store, easy to forget about, and can even be 3D printed, it puts a large burden on innocent people.
Not owning, buying, or manufacturing a thing isn't really a burden, unless you're very, very sensitive.
Jesus talked about people like you when He said, "They pile heavy burdens on people's shoulders and won't lift a finger to help."
Using Jesus to project a judgment that's false as it stands. I'm more than willing to do my part, beginning with argument.
If not doing what you just attempted to do with our shared faith makes me an elitist I'll take it.
Beyond that, as soon as there is another mass shooting, with let's say, a shotgun like the one used in the naval yard shooting, then we are back with your same argument to reduce innocent people down to breech loaders.
The reasonable line will always be an ongoing conversation, but you can't abrogate the right without a Convention, and the weapon you just noted isn't going to meet the criteria that would make it bannable as things sit, without that Amendment.
Since you admit the clock is ticking on innocent people
Rather, I note that the gun lobby is frantically trying to get enough of these to market and in enough hands to try and thwart an argument that can be made against them using precedent.
, you should probably stop calling respected scholars like Tytler and Mendenhall paranoid fanatics.
I believe I'm calling people like you, who use them to your ends the way you used Christ a moment ago, fanatics. Jesus is fine with me.
So you are saying the context is your personal opinion on what is "fast".
No. You said that.
You realize that bump stocks can now be 3D printed?
You realize that meth can be made in a kitchen?
Meaning criminals get them but innocent people are turned into criminals who have them.
The thing we're most impacting isn't in the furtherance of a larger criminal enterprise, but toward an end that is the entirety of the crime.
Guns that don't belong in the public will be considered dangerous. If the government knows in who's house a dangerous thing is, they have an obligation to go into the house to get it.
Addressed multiple times. You need probable cause. A person who isn't a complete imbecile isn't going to hold onto the weapon AND tell the police they have it. After the fact, they're going to find purchasing one problematic.
The question remains. How does taking guns from innocent people stop crazy people?
It stops them from easily putting hands on an AR. That's mitigating the damage. We don't know who these crazy people are until they act. Unless you want mental health examinations coupled with gun training courses, or at least red flag potential as a universal.
Sure, but you laughing at little people is mean.
On the odd chance anyone else read that attempt by Yor to alter the context and present something other than my actual sentiment on the point:
Yeah, laughing at the little people is one of the favorite things elitists do.
Everyone enjoys a laugh. I enjoy laughing at you trying to repeatedly slap the elitist label on people you're judging yourself superior to.
Your claim that semi-autos are a needless risk to public safety has been shown to be wrong according to the data.
All actual evidence to the contrary. They only do one thing better than weapons that can't do that one thing, it being to kill and injure a great many people in an extremely short window of time.
We don't need that weapon to do anything. It is extraordinary in the danger it presents. It is not in the common use. And it should be withdrawn from the stream of commerce.
