You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

**The Vainglorious One** · November 9th, 2001, 06:06 AM

Smackie Says: "Somehow, this topic remains immune from consideration using this rationale, for no reasons that I?ve ever found compelling."

TVO Says: "That is because one involves, inter alia (Among other things), the 1st Am. right to Free Association, the 4th Am. Right to only Prob Cause S&S, and the Commerce Clause while the 2nd involves... well the 2nd Am. These are four different parts of the Con. Written in Three different ways, Hence they are interpreted Differently."

There is an argument to be made that they SHOULD be interpreted the same, but you have yet to make it.

------------------
No sig.

**The Vainglorious One** · November 9th, 2001, 06:09 AM

MGO and Buccaner,
Dumb argument. There are pelnty of free societies with drugs and no guns.

It's all about demand. Oh that and education.

------------------
No sig.

**IBystander** · November 9th, 2001, 06:12 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Vainglorious One:
If you can't even read the Constitution.....
Aw fuck it.

You want a well-regulated militia or whatever, then maintain a well-regulated militia; and ensure that every citizen knows what the fuck they're doing.

What's so difficult about that?

------------------
"A man is basically as faithful as his options." - Chris Rock, philosopher

**Smackie Chan** · November 9th, 2001, 06:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Buccaneer:

Drugs are illegal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They shouldn't be.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Drugs are very easy to obtain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They should be easier to obtain through legal channels.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Drugs are very difficult to police.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There'd be no reason to police them with any greater effort than that employed to police alcohol use if they were legal. An individual chooses to accept the consequences of drug use when they choose to take the drugs. An individual who takes a bullet is afforded no choice. Your decision to contrast drug laws with gun laws reinforces my stance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>When you prohibit something...when you make it illegal, you take control away and put the market into the hands of criminals. The people who ride around at night firing their guns off blindly at pedestrians...or gangsters out pulling midnight heists on a Taco Bell, etc, etc...will still be able to get gun easily. All you are doing is restricting those who need it the least.

There are laws in place which if properly enforced I believe prove effective. Prohibition and the "war on drugs" have shown that federally removing something just makes it more of a problem. The police are a guard, but sometimes you just can't make it to a phone to call them. Your shotgun bluff that you mention...if it works...is sucessful because we do have access to firearms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, you'll notice that I specifically refer to handgun prohibition, which excludes shotguns. I take no issue with those who own shotguns or hunting rifles. The rest of your argument, however, is surrendering; admitting that the war is lost and to continue fighting is futile. You may be right. But I'm not convinced it's a lost cause.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Cars kill more people than guns Smackie. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, boats, motorcycles, airplanes, high cholesterol foods...these all kill probably close to or more people a year than a gun...where is the talk on banning them? It's not really a ridiculous thought...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, a weak argument that I addressed. I'm not arguing that gunshot wounds are the number one cause of death, nor is that even relevant. The products you mentioned serve a purpose other than killing, whereas a handgun does not.

------------------
I moderate with hate

**MgoBlue-LightSpecial** · November 9th, 2001, 06:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dumb argument. There are pelnty of free societies with drugs and no guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the first mistake is to compare our society to these "other" societies and think the argument is on the same level.

The only way we'll get rid of guns out of the hands of criminals and off the streets, AND out of homes is if we find a way to get rid of the resources that make guns. Any suggestions?

------------------
If you ever drop your keys in a river of molten lava, forget it man, cuz they're gone.

-The Great Jack Handey

**The Vainglorious One** · November 9th, 2001, 06:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
You're seriously suggesting that the only thing that keeps our government from turning its guns on its own citizens is the fact that we own guns?
Sorry, Guess I'm livin' in the past.

C'mon TVO, I'd expect that from 95% of the posters on this board, but I figured you to be smarter than that. My bad.
I've read enough History to back it up if you want to go there.

Are the governments of England, France, Italy, Japan, or other industrialized nations that forbid private handgun ownership struggling with this problem?
Now? This Minute? Tomorrow? Not really. In their past, and I would argue...Hence their future? Yes. BTW- On some level...It happens every day in this Country, where we have plenty of Guns, any time a SWAT team takes down a Pot Farm. (I included ?Oppression? don?t forget.)

What makes you think it would be an issue here?
^^^^^Look up...

The sky is falling.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
No sig.

**Smackie Chan** · November 9th, 2001, 06:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Vainglorious One:
Smackie Says: "Somehow, this topic remains immune from consideration using this rationale, for no reasons that I?ve ever found compelling."

TVO Says: "That is because one involves, inter alia (Among other things), the 1st Am. right to Free Association, the 4th Am. Right to only Prob Cause S&S, and the Commerce Clause while the 2nd involves... well the 2nd Am. These are four different parts of the Con. Written in Three different ways, Hence they are interpreted Differently."

There is an argument to be made that they SHOULD be interpreted the same, but you have yet to make it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I won't try. You're approaching this portion of my argument from a purely legal and constitutional standpoint, and I'm arguing it from the perspective of employing common sense to amend laws that no longer serve society, but moreso from the layman's infrequent use of the public safety angle to argue in favor of tougher ownership restrictions. It simply doesn't enter into discussions, when it seems that it should be of paramount consideration.

------------------
I moderate with hate

**The Vainglorious One** · November 9th, 2001, 06:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MgoBlue-LightSpecial:
No, the first mistake is to compare our society to these "other" societies and think the argument is on the same level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is New England so Diffrent from England?
Is little Italy so different from Italy?
Is Japantown so differnt from Japan?

If you think so then you are right.

I beg to differ.

------------------
No sig.

**Buccaneer** · November 9th, 2001, 06:25 AM

TVO -

Irrelevant. We are talking about this society which is pointedly different in a number of respects to others in the world. Do you agree there is a market in this country for handguns and do you agree that said market would continue despite prohibition?

Smackie -

If something can kill, does it matter what it was intended to do? Cigarettes were not intended to kill as many people a year as they do...and yet they still do. Prohibition on tobacco continues to be discussed popularly. Is a kitchen knife any less dangerous in the wrong hands than a hand gun? A corkscrew? A chainsaw? A hunting rifle? Is the issue murder or just the weapon? I seriously doubt handguns rank at the top of the list of weapons used to intentionally kill someone.

Drugs do kill Smackie...why do you have no problem with this? Certain drugs can create dangerous chemical imbalances in people...causing them to act in dangerous and erratic ways...do you have a problem with this?

Why are handguns so much more dangerous that they require prohibition in your mind Smackie?

------------------
truth is a concept conceived by liars

**Smackie Chan** · November 9th, 2001, 06:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TVO:
It happens every day in this Country, where we have plenty of Guns, any time a SWAT team takes down a Pot Farm. (I included ?Oppression? don?t forget.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that private gun ownership doesn't deter the Feds from taking aggressive action against its citizens?

So am I.

------------------
I moderate with hate

Thread: You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions