No Swansong
Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
That I would agree with at least generally.I should’ve said “should not” as it’s foolish
Upvote
0
That I would agree with at least generally.I should’ve said “should not” as it’s foolish
My first impression is this is a dumb question, as I proposed a max 6 round cap, and 7 is more than 6.You would ban 7-shot revolvers then?
Or 36 shot revolvers. Really, pick any number greater than six, and that what I'm proposing to ban.Or nine?
Some others would be polygamy, and unregulated private ownership of explosives (neither of which I support, just using them as examples).Smoking weed (which I do not personally advocate) comes to mind, but the states are already working on that.
Why does having one more potential round in the chamber make a 7-shot revolver worthy of being banned to you?My first impression is this is a dumb question, as I proposed a max 6 round cap, and 7 is more than 6.
But its quite possible there's some technicality I'm not understanding. This is probably what going on, as you dont seem like the dumb-question type of person.
You’re kidding right? Some of the biggest but cases in the world are first amendment defenders. They use the first amendment to argue things that have nothing to do with speech.Not in the same way that 2nd amendment proponents yell about the 2nd amendment.
1st amendment proponents don't take to the streets to protect your right to yell fire in a crowded theater?
1st amendment proponents don't threaten to oust politicians for making pedophilia inappropriate content illegal do they?
1st amendment proponents don't campaign on a platform that if you make snuff films illegal then it is a slippery slope to making all films illegal do they?
So it is not in the same league, not even close. 2nd amendment proponents are pathological in their "don't touch my amendment" stance as compared to 1st amendment proponents.
When you propose a "reasonable" infringement on any other amendment it is met with rational discourse...
When you propose a "reasonable" infringement on the 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment proponents foam at the mouth in their defense using every single logical fallacy in the book, especially the slippery slope fallacy...
if we applied the same logic to all of our other laws and amendments... then we'd have no laws, rules, or regulations... yet for some reason, we let 2nd amendment proponents use these ridiculous arguments and tactics...
It is disingenuous to the point of being absolutely disgusting...
Which countries have unregulated private ownership of explosives? And since you're using it as an example of having as much or more freedom than the private ownership of guns, why is having the unregulated private ownership of explosives better than the private ownership of guns?Some others would be polygamy, and unregulated private ownership of explosives (neither of which I support, just using them as examples).
You could play this game forever. Its the old "drawing the line" problem. Whats the exact right age to let kids drive? Whats the exact right speed limit on a certain street?Why does having one more potential round in the chamber make a 7-shot revolver worthy of being banned to you?
That’s a good point. I read recently that a lot of the guns used by Mexican cartels come in from the US because of our lax gun laws.When your desire to play with guns means more of them will get transported illegally to Canada, it becomes very much my business.
Even I can’t vote in your country.
People have been trying to fix the human soul forever. Its a perennial problem. Meanwhile we deal with the people and culture we've got.And it’s all dealing with mere symptoms of the core problem.
7-shot revolvers are very reasonable for self-defense. If a militia were ever needed to be called upon, 30-round magazines would be very reasonable for self-defense, since a militia's purpose is defense. Since the Second Amendment is written to allow us to be ready for that day, I'm not seeing how your proposal is Constitutional.You could play this game forever. Its the old "drawing the line" problem. Whats the exact right age to let kids drive? Whats the exact right speed limit on a certain street?
Maybe it should be 3 shots. Maybe 7 is better. The idea is to permit reasonable self defense while reducing the likelihood of firearm mass casualty crimes.
I didn't claim it is better. I claimed it is a right some have that U.S. citizens do not. The countries I have in mind are Brazil and Chile. Although I must correct my comment to change "explosives" which can mean many things to "Dynamite" and other like explosives.Which countries have unregulated private ownership of explosives? And since you're using it as an example of having as much or more freedom than the private ownership of guns, why is having the unregulated private ownership of explosives better than the private ownership of guns?
Of course this restricts the innocent. Thats what every single public safety limitation/law does. Even the ones you agree with.But the problem with gun control is you’re restricting the innocent. And that’s who the NRA defends.
If my proposal is unconstitutional (which I doubt) then it would require a constitutional amendment. I'm just proposing what I think is the right balance of gun control vs personal liberty.7-shot revolvers are very reasonable for self-defense. If a militia were ever needed to be called upon, 30-round magazines would be very reasonable for self-defense, since a militia's purpose is defense. Since the Second Amendment is written to allow us to be ready for that day, I'm not seeing how your proposal is Constitutional.
And there it is.To think that in 1790 the Founding Fathers were concerned that men would not be allowed to own guns to feed and protect themselves, their families, and their property is laughable.
What they were concerned about was a government that would try to take their guns in order to force the people into submission to tyranny. Thus the Second Amendment.
Which in no way means that men shouldn't own guns for the other above rational and logical reasons that are just as justified today as they were in 1790.