BraveNewCheneyWorld: Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?
Generation_D: Right, because "Freedom" equals being required to participate in a moron arms race with the gun nut down the street, then hoping I shoot them before they shoot me.The only one holding me hostage is gun nuts. Not the government, not laws that would *gasp* make me register my gun or pass a test before owning it. Not laws trying to take military grade rapid fire clear a room weapons out of the hands of nutjobs.
dittybopper: That's a perfect example of something that shouldn't have passed the smell test, and it's a textbook case of "Correlation != Causation". There was a gun in the home, but if it wasn't used in the homicide, then you can't say it caused an increase in the risk. It likely was there because the owners perceived (rightly) that they were at some risk unrelated to the gun itself.
Witty_Retort: So $3 million out of $30 million is "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source
Witty_Retort: Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?
Witty_Retort: Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.
ox45tallboy: The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed.
ox45tallboy: We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.
ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent?
Mrbogey: Do you really believe the Founders believed that they were at a technological zenith and nothing better than a flintlock would ever come to exist?
Mrbogey: Typically they use designs functionally no different than those from only a few decades after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
Mrbogey: The basis for the law is already in the existing laws dealing with theft and violation of privacy.
Mrbogey: How would that imperative be any different than for any other drug?
ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.You can't compare my opinions on two different subjects and call me inconsistent when the subjects are different. Hence the phrase, "apples and oranges". My affinity for and consumption of alcohol is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And, very Karl Rove-like, you accuse me of dodging the question when I won't talk about what you attempted to change the subject to, all the while you have refused to answer the question yourself!
ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent? I can foresee that being a possibility. How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use? I can foresee that, too, but right now, it either doesn't exist or isn't commercially available, hence there are no laws against it.
BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not changing the subject at all. It's a point about a willingness to restrict the public from access to "unnecessary" items which are directly involved in preventable deaths. You are apparently unwilling to speak against alcohol, which is solely for entertainment and kills 80,000 people per year, and you're very willing to speak against guns which are for self defense and kill 12,000 people per year. This demonstrates that your concern for life is secondary to your hatred for guns.To argue that we cannot compare them because they are "apples and oranges" is asinine, and frankly a tired, traditional fark dodge. What good would comparisons ever be if we were only permitted to compare identical subjects?
BraveNewCheneyWorld: and we have no form of cognitive enhancements available at this time.
ox45tallboy: They also left in place a system of government called "elections" that allows people to choose representatives to represent their interests in government.
ox45tallboy: That's the equivalent of saying a typical modern computer uses designs functionally no different from UNIVAC in the 1950's. Yet there was no reason to legislate anything regarding computer crimes in the 1950's, so why do so now?
ox45tallboy: Really? Tell that to those who datamine your web searches. Also, tell that to Google and Apple who keep track of your cell phone's location without fully disclosing they are doing so, and in some cases, telling you they are not. There are still no laws making this sort of practice illegal.
ox45tallboy: Because we have separate legislative definitions of every drug.
Mrbogey: Really? You're going to talk down to me when you're the one who is ignorant?
Mrbogey: Well either you're ignorant of how computers work or you're ignorant of how guns work. A modern computer using silicon and transistors with a GUI interface is different than a vacuum tube operated computational machine. Meanwhile a revolver built in 2013 functions almost exactly like a revolver built in 1836 with minor refinements for accuracy, ergonomics, and safety. You could literally drop a revolver from 2013 into the hands of a person from 1836 and vice versa and there would be functional confusion.
Mrbogey: But the legislative basis is still there.You're just not getting this because you're willfully trying to not educate yourself on the subjects you pontificate upon.
ox45tallboy: No, I'm going to talk down to you when it is you who stooped to calling me ignorant instead of rationally debating the topic.
ox45tallboy: Wow. You just called me ignorant of the way computers work.
ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.
ox45tallboy: I am merely in favor of rational limitations to private ownership of guns - such as banning fully automatic weapons.
ox45tallboy: Any limitation we enact should be done by eliminating only new sales, and letting already existing weapons/magazines gradually decline on their own.
Mrbogey: First, I asked you to consider the notion that it'd be ridiculous to believe that the founders didn't consider technology updates. You then came back with the smarmy "something called an election" prattle.I want to discuss the issue with rationality. You apparently want to win the argument and you don't care what card you have to deal to "win".
Mrbogey: Actually I posited an OR statement. You made a fallacious comparison which betrays a lack of understanding of one or the other.
Mrbogey: ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.No, it's not. The mislabeling is intended to slow down the regulatory catch but once the feds realize the scam they can put it on a schedule list. State's usually do so first while the feds get around to it. I believe Canada added it to their Schedule listing already.
Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.
Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further
ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.No, that isn't what I said at all, and you know that. However, FA weapons are rarely used in crime nowadays since they simply aren't available.
ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you furtherWhoa, hang on a second. I have NEVER, in any thread, acted in that way towards gun control. Please look back over what I have posted, then Google my username with site:fark.com and look at those posts. I don't believe you can look at my posts (except towards obvious trolls) and come to that conclusion.I really do believe that I have reached my conclusions based on rational assessment of the facts available. However, I accept that I may not have had all of the available data at hand when I reached those conclusions, and that is why I continue to talk about it. I am accepting of the fact that I may be wrong, but I really do believe I have a rational basis for my conclusions.
redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk
redmid17: That's pretty much what Feinstein and Lautenberg said.
ox45tallboy: redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talkYou just posted a statistic that proved my point - that FA weapons are rarely used in crimes. The hoops one has to jump through in order to obtain one make it so that very, very few are available to criminals on the black market.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 24 2017 20:17:22
Runtime: 0.411 sec (411 ms)