In response to:

How Guns Are Like Nukes

NormRx Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 6:48 AM
So you think reasonable gun control is OK, so what the hell is reasonable? Ask one hundred people what reasonable gun control is and you will get one hundred different answers. How about reasonable restrictions on the first amendment? How about reasonable restrictions on abortion, after all, fifty million future citizens of the U.S. have been murdered. I will NEVER register my guns, they can all go to hell.
midfielder2 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 10:20 AM
"Reasonable gun control" is being able to hit your target.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:13 AM
registration DOES NOTHING towards preventing crime or gun violence,and it rarely leads to solving crimes after they're committed. It's a huge expense,as Canada found. They dropped their registry,it wasn't worth the expense and did little in solving crimes.
So,the only logical reason for registration is for eventual confiscation.

auto registration does not prevent drunk driving,or use of autos in crimes,nor does licensing drivers. Licensing a driver does not even mean they will drive properly.
it's merely for taxation,and punishment AFTER a crime's been committed.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:16 AM
Illinois registers gun owners,yet Chicago is the murder capital of the US.

OTOH,DC used to have similar murder rates,but after SCOTUS invalidated DC's gun ban,the murder rate plummeted. "More guns,less crime", but the guns were in the hands of lawful citizens.
Tacitus X Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 7:11 AM
There are reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment. You can't claim First Amendment protection for treason, fraud, extortion, etc. I can't yell political slogans with a bullhorn through your bedroomn window at 2 a.m. in the morning. There are thousands of other examples from the classic examle of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater to terroristic threats on an airline flight.

The type of firearms appropriate for citizens would be those of the type in common use. It also depends on the citizen. Dynamite is appropriate for a mining engineer but inappropriate for a New York City cab driver. A machine gun may be appropriate for an isolated rancher in an area subject to border raids, but inappropriate for a theater usher.
Donald6189 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:00 AM
Perhaps I'm wrong but you seemed to have missed the 'responsible owner' part of this conversation and I disagree with your stance on both the first and second amendment here, you clearly have the right to yell political slogans through a bullhorn at 2 a.m. outside my window, it's irresponsible though, and I, would have the right to shoot you between the eyes as a result, invasion of property and privacy being my reasoning. Secondly the idea that a rancher in an isolated border area as opposed to a New York cabbie is ridiculous, it isn't about the area they live, the second amendment was written to give the people the right to defend against a tyrannical government, I might carry a pistol for protection in a city enviroment, cont.
Donald6189 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:02 AM
But I absolutely demand the right to possess a weapon at least equal to that of a soldier of the government to use if I absolutely have too, and I would be 'well regulated' enough to know when, where and how to use said weapon.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:18 AM
you're not rational.
a noise disturbance is not any lethal threat,so you have ZERO right to shoot the person making the noise. So much for your idea of "responsible".
Tacitus X Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:56 AM
Thank you for demonstrating the point that there are mentally unhinged people like yourself who (like children and felons) should not be allowed to possess firearms.
Donald6189 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 4:11 PM
How is that not rational? And how does it constitute being unhinged? It's 2 in the morning, you start blaring political statements in my window through a bullhorn, whose irrational and unhinged here? I'm sorry but it's perfectly normal to become seriously alarmed when mentally unhinged moron armed with the freedom of speech, a bullhorn but no rational sense of responsiblity to NOT use it a 2 in the morning comes calling, yes, I'm going to shoot you, talk about children, tacitus and jay, you both qualify in my book for your irrational responses to me. Again, you both miss the responsible part of the argument, or did not my use of the term 'well regulated' (see responsible) make it clear to you?
Donald6189 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 4:14 PM
And you both also seemed to have breezed by the stated purpose of the 2nd amendment, it's not merely about self defense, anymore than it is about hunting or sports shooting. I'll repeat again, hopefully you'll be listening with both eyes this time, IT'S TO KEEP IN CHECK AN OUT OF CONTROL TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. Savvy?

I stand out among my conservative friends in disliking guns. I favor reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment, such as bans on fully automatic weapons, background checks for purchases and forbidding the sale of guns to those with histories of mental illness or criminality.

Yet I cannot agree with liberals that more gun control will lead to fewer gun crimes.

President Obama's choice for defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, actually illuminated one of the weaknesses of the gun control case. Hagel had been closely associated with Global Zero (though he's since repudiated it), a movement dedicated to "the elimination of all nuclear...