'Reasonable Gun Control' OpEd piece on officer.com
- Thread starter ratcobob
- Start date
- Status
alemonkey
Member
I was heartened to read the comments from the various LEO's. Virtually all of them support our cause, and they were all very well though out and well written. This squares with what I've seen from the cops I'm friends with. You're average Joe officer working the street is usually pro-gun because he sees what works in the real world. The chiefs on the other hand are political appointees and are often anti-gun, just like their masters.
Lou McGopher
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 507
Ugh, not the same tired old arguments again....
This argument makes several assumptions.
First, it assumes what common sense is in regard to the issue of restrictions on rights.
Second, it assumes that the courts are correct in their application of limitations on rights.
Third, the "yell fire in a crowded theatre" argument has its own set of assumptions. Can people please quit using this analogy? Like, forever? It's foolish, and displays a lack of critical thinking and originality in one's argument. Theaters are usually private places. Thus, what constitutes acceptable behavior in the theater is dictated by the theater owner. Aside from that, just because you hear someone yelling "fire" doesn't mean you have an excuse to (as the analogy implies) trample people in your mad dash to the exit. We were taught all through school how to proceed quickly but calmly to the fire exit. An emergency situation does not absolve one of the responsibility of rational thinking and respect for the welfare of others. "Is there really a fire? Where is it? Am I running toward the fire or away from it? Who is this guy who's yelling? Do I smell smoke? Why isn't the manager or usher taking charge of the situation?"
"Unreasonable" and "excessive" are explicitly listed in those Amendments. There are no such qualifications in either the First or Second Amendments.
In the 15th Century, the Turks built a cannon that could fire a 1500 lbs stone ball over a mile. It was still functional 300 years later. I wouldn't call this puny.
More assumptions.
If self-defense is the litmus test, then why state
Would not a totalitarian regime have access to these more powerful weapons?
Is fighting a totalitarian regime or repelling an invading army not a form of self-defense?
As to the question of megaton bombs and their parallels, let's consider the following:
Some people consider private ownership of guns to be a threat, period. It matters not how the gun is handled. It matters not whether the gun is pointed at them. Its mere possession is considered to be a threat.
But what of other weapons? Knives and cars may be used to kill people. Does anyone consider the mere possession of a knife or car to be an automatic threat? Certainly not. They are considered threats based on how they are handled. We don't consider someone to be a threat just because they have a knife in their pocket. It's not until they express an intent to use it, or wield it in a way that stands a good chance of injuring someone else that we consider it a threat. Likewise, just because someone has a car, or is driving a car, we don't consider them a threat. It's not until they have the car pointed at us, while revving the accelerator, or are drunkenly weaving down the road that we consider them a threat.
If we don't apply the context of intent and behavior to determine a threat, then there is literally no object that cannot be considered a threat to someone's safety. It is in this manner that we should determine the threat of firearms and, yes, even nukes. Someone who is merely in possession of a firearm is not a threat until they express an intention to use it against someone, or handling it in a manner that stands a reasonable chance of harming someone else. The same goes for grenades, bazookas, and ICBMs. (I will admit that it may be much easier to handle a bomb in a way that has a reasonable chance of harming others.)
There is but one reasonable limitation to any action... And that is, "At what point does exercise of this action violate the rights of someone else?" Rights don't have limitations. An actions ceases to be a right when the action violates the rights of another.
This argument makes several assumptions.
First, it assumes what common sense is in regard to the issue of restrictions on rights.
Second, it assumes that the courts are correct in their application of limitations on rights.
Third, the "yell fire in a crowded theatre" argument has its own set of assumptions. Can people please quit using this analogy? Like, forever? It's foolish, and displays a lack of critical thinking and originality in one's argument. Theaters are usually private places. Thus, what constitutes acceptable behavior in the theater is dictated by the theater owner. Aside from that, just because you hear someone yelling "fire" doesn't mean you have an excuse to (as the analogy implies) trample people in your mad dash to the exit. We were taught all through school how to proceed quickly but calmly to the fire exit. An emergency situation does not absolve one of the responsibility of rational thinking and respect for the welfare of others. "Is there really a fire? Where is it? Am I running toward the fire or away from it? Who is this guy who's yelling? Do I smell smoke? Why isn't the manager or usher taking charge of the situation?"
"Unreasonable" and "excessive" are explicitly listed in those Amendments. There are no such qualifications in either the First or Second Amendments.
In the 15th Century, the Turks built a cannon that could fire a 1500 lbs stone ball over a mile. It was still functional 300 years later. I wouldn't call this puny.
More assumptions.
If self-defense is the litmus test, then why state
Would not a totalitarian regime have access to these more powerful weapons?
Is fighting a totalitarian regime or repelling an invading army not a form of self-defense?
As to the question of megaton bombs and their parallels, let's consider the following:
Some people consider private ownership of guns to be a threat, period. It matters not how the gun is handled. It matters not whether the gun is pointed at them. Its mere possession is considered to be a threat.
But what of other weapons? Knives and cars may be used to kill people. Does anyone consider the mere possession of a knife or car to be an automatic threat? Certainly not. They are considered threats based on how they are handled. We don't consider someone to be a threat just because they have a knife in their pocket. It's not until they express an intent to use it, or wield it in a way that stands a good chance of injuring someone else that we consider it a threat. Likewise, just because someone has a car, or is driving a car, we don't consider them a threat. It's not until they have the car pointed at us, while revving the accelerator, or are drunkenly weaving down the road that we consider them a threat.
If we don't apply the context of intent and behavior to determine a threat, then there is literally no object that cannot be considered a threat to someone's safety. It is in this manner that we should determine the threat of firearms and, yes, even nukes. Someone who is merely in possession of a firearm is not a threat until they express an intention to use it against someone, or handling it in a manner that stands a reasonable chance of harming someone else. The same goes for grenades, bazookas, and ICBMs. (I will admit that it may be much easier to handle a bomb in a way that has a reasonable chance of harming others.)
There is but one reasonable limitation to any action... And that is, "At what point does exercise of this action violate the rights of someone else?" Rights don't have limitations. An actions ceases to be a right when the action violates the rights of another.
Lou McGopher
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 507
This seems to vary by locale.
Zombie
member
Or the Supreme Court, or pretty much most people but the moderate left.
Legally now too, after the Heller case.
Consider it, but dismiss it:
These are hugely hugely impossible standards to meet.
But this explains a lot:
So is for repealing the assault weapon ban in MA or extending it? I can't tell. I am willing to bet he is considering running for public office.
armoredman
Member
Seems none of them heard of Heller, still trying to tie militia service to firearms ownership. Also, most favor testing - if it's held to the states in McDonald, then it will be like voting, cannot have a test. Make firearms training mandatory in school, (tie it into the American Government class, that would make THAT class a lot more fun!), like AZ does offer as an option right now.
Bighouse Doc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 56
Personal weapons
I often get asked where the RKBA ends. I always get the idiotic question about nuclear weapons and such.
Traditionally, the RKBA applied to personal weapons.
That effectively removes large crew served weapons, nuclear bombs and the like from the argument.
I often get asked where the RKBA ends. I always get the idiotic question about nuclear weapons and such.
Traditionally, the RKBA applied to personal weapons.
That effectively removes large crew served weapons, nuclear bombs and the like from the argument.
- Status