Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Yet another AWB opinion.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by hube1236, Sep 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hube1236

    hube1236 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    New Orleans LA
    I have been recently reading a great deal of traffic on the AWB and its (thankfully) subsequent expiration. I have a few reservations regarding the reasoning that the RKBA crowd is using to further our point (collective).

    :)
    To me- frist and biggest disclaimer- the Union is a collection of fifty individual states bound together by an agreement called the Constitution. Each state has its own charter ratified by the residents who live there. I am strongly opposed (100% against) to a Federal level ban for it imposes the will of urban population centers mainly in the very West or the North East- including my (unfortunate) alma mater, NY.

    This is where the dander gets stirred. I am less opposed- say 95% completely against, to state or even city imposed bans, not because I think the RKBA is a conditional statement, but those elections more closely do represent the will of the people directly. As in free markets, if I lost the battle here, I can move elsewhere in my country and retain citizenship and still enjoy the rights guaranteed to me under the Federal constitution.

    :) :)
    The Second Amendment does not grant a right, it guarantees a right. All of the discourse on this and other forums discuss the 2A as if it disappeared, or the phrasing changed slightly, it would matter to the inherrent right it protects- self preservation and self government. I and mine should have access to the same toys as you and yours.

    Arguments comparing guns to nukes breakdown, in my mind, because of the intended use. Nukes are not designed with self preservation, or regime change in mind, they are a hostage for/against the other guy. We raced to get them before the Germans did, and used them twice conventionally against Japan, but we never will again, unless, they are used against us. You can't do anything to me, because I will kill all of you, I can not kill all of you, without all of me being killed.

    It is subtle, while guns can fit into nuke categories, nukes can not fit into guns- kind of like the all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

    :) :) :)
    Lastly, saying the ban did nothing, noting that in the same time we have had Columbine and other spree shootings implies that if there was a more restrictive law, good people would still be alive today.

    We all know the law was a farce and that for those that practiced, a mag change among 10 rounders, really does not stop one from sending 30 rnds down range with that much of a time penalty, or strapping a bayonet onto an aluminum rifle held together by two pins is all that much more of a bad thing.

    In my mind, the key argument here is that the money it costs to enforce stupid laws. I have no anti-opinion on stem cell research, I would however mind the feds increasing the tax rate to install another bereau to administrate stem cell research. With the federal government, every $1 spent, I would guess that only $0.08 - $0.12 gets productively spent.

    The real offense is the billons wasted in crafting stupid legislation and even more enforcing it through growth of BATF, Customs, etc all looking for a magazine stamp.

    Before I get to far away from the point- which I kind of lost- the argument is not that the law did nothing, the argument is that we spent money for nothing. Which implies, if we want more done, we have to spend even more money- which is not something the average joe thinks when they want laws passed.

    :fire: Don't even get me going on a Marriage Amendment :fire:

    I would appreciate feedback, as I come from a long line of NY socialcrats, and debate them frequently. Help me craft an argument- not that I ever hope to change minds, but to offer more resoning than, "it's in the Constitution." I am familiar with Lott and his work, I am going from a logical approach, and frankly Lott can be twisted into supporting the AWB- as gun crime statistically decreased during its tenure- not the same kind of crime- not the same type of gun, but that statement has been used before.

    Beers!
     
  2. ssr

    ssr Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    287
    I do not agree with this statement, since we are not based upon simple majority rule. The majority cannot force it's will upon the minority. The Bill of Rights is meant to ensure this, whether it's speech, religion, firearms, whatever. Our government was established to ensure freedom, and not oppression by the majority.

    If it's a right, it's a right, regardless if the majority wants to dispose of it or devalue it.
     
  3. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    All of this coming up with defensive arguments is BS.

    THEY have to come up with an overwhelming and compelling argument why citizens' freedoms should be restricted.
     
  4. hube1236

    hube1236 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    New Orleans LA
    It is not a defensive argument and not every one lives in Montanna where there is high RKBA. There are people that like to verbally fight. Giving them the air time does not lead me to victor.

    As far as agreeing with the statement. Eventually politics gets local enough where the majority does reign over the minority, this is a cost of living in a society- not everyone's opinion matters. The higher in government the edicts come from though, the less tied to our local society the laws become.

    i.e. New York street crossing rules have no frigging place in New Mexico, but an over zealous could get a law passed. Spending money where money is not spent.
     
  5. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    The AWB is gone now, and no one can show that it has done a dang bit of good. (well ... except for enraging a bunch of "gun nuts" who are now watching the henhouse a bit closer :p )

    So to enact another such law, THEY have to prove that there is a need for it and a reason why it would be effective.
     
  6. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,093
    watch Maryland next January

    The uplifters are at it again

    http://www.gazette.net/200437/weekend/a_section/235293-1.html

    "We ban assault pistols, we should be banning assault rifles," said Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D). "We don't need them in our community. We saw the damage these rifles can do during the sniper shooting. We don't need them around."

    A survey of more than 800 registered voters shows that it may be, at least on its face.

    The survey, conducted in February for CeaseFire Maryland by Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies of Annapolis, found that 74 percent of registered Maryland voters, regardless of party affiliation, favor legislators passing a law banning assault weapons in Maryland.

    Citing that support, Garagiola and Quinter said they will try again next year.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page