Heston first gave that speech in 2000, just months after the Columbine High School massacre. The gun he held in that first speech was a replica of a flintlock long-rifle. Any floozy flaunting a flintlock can keep it.
Printable View
Heston first gave that speech in 2000, just months after the Columbine High School massacre. The gun he held in that first speech was a replica of a flintlock long-rifle. Any floozy flaunting a flintlock can keep it.
Wound From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly thing to See’: By Gina Kolata and C.J.Chivers in the March 4, 2018 NYT
https://nyti.ms/2CY5mDi
The destructive power of modern weapons is something that needs to be factored in to the conversation, as the link Trish has provided shows. It is not just the guns, but the bullets they fire, their velocity, their destructive impact. It also begs the question -what is self-defence? Was it in Bowling for Columbine that Heston, when questioned about the misery and death caused to innocent people by guns, rose from his seat in silence and walked out? His reputation shattered.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This is how Liberals on this board are behaving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xCYv6MeC8
Really? Who? Seems to me it's the conservatives here who are posting their messages in large red fonts (see post #66), or posting videos with gun enthusiasts wearing T’s that say “Crush Everything” and warning us of the slippery slope leading to the end of Democracy and the 2nd Amendment. Or other videos about how the rest of us will have to pry your rifles from your cold dead hands. If there really were such a thing, you guys would get the academy award in the category of crisis acting.
:razz: Oh no, Lizard man strikes again. I'm gonna thumb down all the posts and show them that semi-automatic weapons with bullets that rip through people at 2000 mph are really good. As the other dude said, they're valuable because you can become an instructor which provides the clear utility of allowing someone to instruct other people on how to shoot these useless, life-destroying, military weapons for rejects.
Silencers? Why not? Tons of law-abiding uses for them. When you want to kill someone in self-defense but don't want to wake the neighbors they're perfect!
Florida has passed new laws on guns...and the NRA sues...I wonder if they are about to go on a losing streak having had a good run for so many years?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
nra rules...its true..one should join nra as soon as possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
2000 is ok but wht about 4000 or 6000Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Thank you. I didn't know about any of this. The laws look very reasonable and from what I've seen from the article the NRA doesn't have much chance of succeeding in court based on what Scalia has said. He said in Heller that nothing in his opinion should be interpreted to mean assault weapon bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to own the type of ordinary weapon people use for self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.
For example let's say in order to work somewhere safely it required a person to be 170 pounds and at least 5 foot 8. If instead of just mandating that requirement, they say that women cannot operate machinery because only 10% of women meet those requirements. In equal protection terms the classification would be over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because some women are that height and weight and it's under-inclusive because some men aren't.
The NRA is claiming that the age restriction discriminates against adults 18-21. But age has always been a proxy for maturity and they certainly would not want the government to engage in the sort of competency testing that would get more directly to the issue. It's also true that while older people can face invidious discrimination that underestimates their competency it hasn't been much of a problem with younger individuals. As I sort of indicated, equal protection addresses the use of classifications that aren't effective for legislating, but it also looks for an element of discrimination. The age restriction is unfortunately the best proxy we have for most dangerous activities short of stringent licensing and individualized competency testing, and it's not what they call a "suspect classification" where you are somewhat suspicious of the intent behind the classification.
The bigger point behind this is to ask, what does this say about the NRA? Things we already know but that their aim is not to protect the right to own guns for self-defense, but a militia culture that is toxic to our country. It also indicates they don't know how to pick their battles, because unless there is something I'm not seeing here, they're going to lose. They are worried about the laws but as laws determine norms, and as Scalia's opinion kind of uses norms as a benchmark for laws, they don't want this to get away from them.
It doesn't say in the article but I just read that the NRA has argued in their briefs that the law discriminates against "women aged 18-21." In other words, because women are much less likely to engage in gun violence, the law is irrational when applied to women.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
But would they for instance support a law that prevented men from getting guns until 25 when the brain is fully developed, and women, who are more stable and mature to be able to own guns at 18? I would fully support making women the guardians of guns for men of any age since they are so much less likely to engage in violence. How about it NRA? This wins most disingenuous argument of the year given how frequently women are the victims of violence.
I am unable to match your erudite exposition of the legal position, it seems to me the NRA has for the time being, at least, lost the moral argument, and that is what matters to 'ordinary people', including those who own guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...-demonstration
This came across my feed. A specific incident but doesn't bode well for arming teachers.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/gr...ing/index.html
Maryland school officer stops armed student who shot 2 others
Blaine Gaskill is a hero.
Great, the student "only" shot two others, so problem solved. In any normal country that would be counted as a failure, not a success to be celebrated.
I’m not quite clear on the story here. Was the shooter on a rampage, or was his goal to kill the 16 year old female student who knew him? Was the 14 year old boy an unfortunate bystander or the first victim of a massacre that was stopped short by a hero. Did the SWAT trained officer stop a suicide or another mass shooting? Either way it was all a tragedy that didn’t have to happen.
“Officials could not say who shot the boy or whether the attacker, 17-year-old Austin Wyatt Rollins, was killed by Gaskill or shot himself with the Glock semiautomatic handgun he brought to the school.” ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.a59d185c146b )
“It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.” ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/ma...rnd/index.html )
In what direction was Rollins' gun pointed when our hero shot him?
Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/w...ridge-van.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/d...turing-n763286
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/w...-shooting.html
Scalia in Heller: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
By lying you make it clear you depend upon ignorance to make your argument. What Scalia said above does not preclude the regulation of guns. In fact, he explicitly says that conditions on the sale of weapons is permissible under the second amendment.
While we're on the theme of ignorance, why would single data points be more useful than statistics? What is the murder rate in Britain? Are these novel means of killing common enough that with fewer guns just as many people are being killed? Or are they a handful of examples demonstrating that only the most determined killers will find a way to kill without the best means possible, but that others who are less motivated might not if they don't have a killing machine at hand?
Poor guy doesn't understand the Constitution, hasn't read Heller, and doesn't know what a statistic is and why it would be more relevant than a series of examples.
UK murder rate - 0.92 per 100,000 people. US murder rate - 4.88 per 100,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rateQuote:
Originally Posted by dreamon
UK gun ownership - 6.2 per 100 people. US gun ownership - 101 per 100 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country
Similar disparities can be seen for every other developed country. I asked you to explain this before and I'm still waiting for an answer. What is it about these data that you find so hard to understand?
The Maryland shooting was on every local channel where I live, all sensationalism, short on facts, I turned it off, and of course yesterday we had the kid's march, hats off to them, it's a cinch the Republicans and Democrats won't fix the problem, maybe the children can. For me, that time between sixth grade and ninth grade was maybe the time I was most alive, it's no accident surging hormones necessitates it's own two year middle school, with teachers trying to keep a lid on the boiling pot. One of my friends I've known almost my whole life reminded me that life had many more demands in School, much tougher than a JOB where they pretend you're an adult and an equal. But it's the same deal, people still get pushed around by the Powers that Be, and ignored by the people in charge who have their own agenda. To be in charge you have to TAKE charge, and that notion is scarier than guns.
A ten year-old boy insists he would give his life to shield his classmates from harm. This story broke my heart.
https://storycorps.org/listen/tanai-...-floyd-180323/
Desmond needs to be told his ten year-old body is not a shield. It cannot possibly be a shield. It stands no chance of stopping a bullet from an AR-15 which would pass right through him, eviscerate him In the process and still kill the student he would protect. In the Parkland shooting students who hid behind walls still died.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...201949054.html
I don't know who Ted Nugent is other than that he is some loud-mouth in the NRA who has attacked the students from Parkland in Florida who are campaigning for radical gun control legislation. His latest attack does reveal his own ignorance even if it underlines the pseudo-religious claims people like him claim as their American heritage, thus, arguing that their level of ignorance goes beyond stupidity, he continues
Again, the National Rifle Association are a bunch of American families who have a voice to stand up for our God-given constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8283031.html
But while there is a God in the Declaration of Independence, there is no God in the Constitution, as explained here-
Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that its purposes are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are wholly secular objects; religious references are extraneous in a document drafted to further them.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02...-constitution/
On the matter of ignorance, and prejudice replacing the truth, Mr Nugent leads us all.
What is interesting abut this decision is that it is based in part on Scalia's now famous judgement District of Columbia -v- Heller.
A federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a citizen’s right to own an AR-15 rifle and other, similar semi-automatic “military style” rifles and high capacity magazines.
“AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment ... and may be banned,” Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young wrote in his ruling.
The year-old case was first brought to court in January 2017 by a group of gun owners, the nonprofit Gun Owner’s Action League, and gun stores in the state.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8294186.html
Good guy with a gun leaves it in a public restroom to be found by an intoxicated homeless man. Good guy, bad guy, intoxicated guy. More guns are not the solution.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...oom/514855002/
Too many guns in circulation is the problem.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bani-du...s-teens-crash/
Luckily, no gun was involved...
(Chalk up 3 more dead due to alcohol which has been shown to kill more per year than guns...)
You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
I'm just going to copy and paste this for the next time you do this. I recommend we can each have our own signature response to Mr Fanti instead of responding anew. Automation deserves automation.
No...Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Your argument about alcohol being okay and guns not being okay is totally not logical...and denying all the evidence that I've posted makes your counter argument even more ridiculous...
Have a good weekend!
"LAPD officer faces 3 counts of murder for alleged drunken driving crash on 605 Freeway that killed Riverside family"
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/2...017-dui-crash/
I'll just quote Broncofan, "You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?" You should read it carefully.
Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
We've gone long enough without giving you a fair response. Your view that guns are dangerous and that alcohol is no more dangerous than filtered water is not logical. You've ignored the evidence that drunk driving kills people and believe that guns shoot themselves which is just as absurd. Also marijuana. And nicotine. And lawn darts. Hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The last post probably resembles Mr. Fanti's actual posts too much to be effective satire. What you and I and Trish and others have proven is that there are many ways to make the same point and get the same wooden response that ignores it. Both guns and alcohol should be regulated. Both present public health hazards and to the extent those hazards can reasonably be mitigated they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
At this point I would be happy if Mr. Fanti would just summarize our two posts on the last page to show he understands them. This sort of exercise in summarizing your opponent's argument can be useful.
I will summarize Mr. Fanti's argument to the extent I understand it: "You want to ban guns but don't have any problem with alcohol, which means you're a hypocrite, and also makes the case that guns should not be banned or even regulated." The rebuttals have been: First, we don't want to ban guns. Second, we don't think alcohol should be unregulated and are not opposed to continued and additional regulation if you can propose useful regulations. Third, the claims don't depend on one another so it's not logical to argue that if alcohol is not adequately regulated then guns are. Even if we were hypocritical, which the first two points make clear we're not, the third point would not have logical support.
Miracles can happen
Whatever they did to cigarettes worked like a damn charm, it seems like nobody smokes now.
Just the hard core who will give anything for a butt.
Everyone has known someone with end stage lung disease. Some of the risks are caused by second hand smoke but a lot of the harm is borne by the smoker. People didn't have to quit out of consideration for society's collective health but could be convinced that they were going to die a horrible death if they continued.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
You can probably convince a smoker that they stand a good chance of getting cancer but you'll never convince a gun owner that he's not a hero in the making or that he's more likely to shoot himself than a criminal. Every gun owner sees the legislation as aimed at other people who are the loose cannons or unsafe. Even if you can convince gun owners there's a collective safety issue, most still see themselves as the victims of gun legislation because they personally are not the risks.
You may be right, but it's notable that such attitudes are restricted largely to the US and not shared by other countries. That suggests that these attitudes are socially-conditioned and can change under the right circumstances. Overt racial and sexual discrimination used to be accepted as natural, but that changed over 1-2 generations, even among the majority of white men who were not adversely affected by it. The big problem in the US is that attitudes to guns have become a marker of tribal identity on the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I see your point. The first time I had a conversation with someone who was really attached to guns, I remembered thinking to myself "is this person an adult?" I think the examples of racism and sexual discrimination are good ones because racists and sexists held their views strongly and were impervious to evidence. There was enough of a sea change in attitudes that political solutions could be imposed on the dissenters. But we have to remember that even over the issue of race we fought a bloody war, we had a segregated society, and large scale disenfranchisement that has really been gradually eroded.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I don't want to be a pessimist but we can't even get people to attribute the effects of gun ownership to guns. But with most things, we do end up moving in the right direction. If you look at gay marriage, we went from it being a radical idea to it being a protected right in twenty years....but it depends where we're measuring from. If we look at the arc in the gun control movement, I wonder where we are.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Tw...y-night-378668Quote:
DRUNK DRIVER KILLS FATHER AND DAUGHTER IN HEAD-ON CRASH NEAR ARAD
Keep on telling yourselves that alcohol is fine and guns are bad....
Of course alcoholics and people that can't live without their drinks have distorted a view about the facts of alcohol vs gun deaths.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-ocean-n865921Quote:
Mother was driving drunk when Hart family SUV plunged into ocean, police say
Thankfully, your folks opinions are easily disputed by facts.....
Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?
He's too stupid to understand your question. I bet he thinks he's answered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2