Gun Control

[CARLHAYDEN]

Taking Nick's argument then since radio, television, movies, the internet, etc. were not in existence at the of the adoption of the first amendment, then they should not be covered by the First Amendment.

BTW, pistols did exist for a couple of centuries prior to the adoption of the second amendment.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!

These days, that's true.

It's odd that in many parts of America you can't legally buy fireworks to celebrate July 4, a holiday that is supposed to be about freedom. Yet I have e-mail friends in Britain - the country that America broke away from - who have no trouble at all buying fireworks.

In other words, we no longer have the freedom to celebrate our freedom from a country that now has more freedom than we do. Strange.

America is not as free as it was 25 years ago.

[John Dibble]

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!

These days, that's true.

It's odd that in many parts of America you can't legally buy fireworks to celebrate July 4, a holiday that is supposed to be about freedom. Yet I have e-mail friends in Britain - the country that America broke away from - who have no trouble at all buying fireworks.

In other words, we no longer have the freedom to celebrate our freedom from a country that now has more freedom than we do. Strange.

America is not as free as it was 25 years ago.

Fireworks aren't legal in my state. Three things however:

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

2. Certain groups are allowed to shoot off fireworks displays for the public for said holidays. Most of these are free(if you exclude the cases where taxes pay for them, but I think many of them have corporate sponsors). So yes we are still allowed to celebrate them.

3. Any of these laws are state or local, not federal. My biggest problem with our country is the federal government. It's gotten too big and should return more power to state and local government. Do I agree with the fireworks laws? Not really, but I have more influence over my state government than I do the federal government.

On England - they are more free in some areas and less free in others(like possesion of firearms).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

Kentucky used to be like this. Yeah, it was illegal, but nobody cared. A few years ago, however, they started throwing people in JAIL.

[??????????]

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

Kentucky used to be like this. Yeah, it was illegal, but nobody cared. A few years ago, however, they started throwing people in JAIL.

Bandit,

I agree fireworks being illegal is not only stupid but hypocritical of the whole point of the 4th of July.

[John Dibble]

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

Kentucky used to be like this. Yeah, it was illegal, but nobody cared. A few years ago, however, they started throwing people in JAIL.

I told you how it is in Georgia. Personally I don't care what it's like in Kentucky unless I have to move there. If it is of concern to you lobby to make them legal.

[??????????]

1. The law isn't really enforced. Sale is restricted, but most people just go to Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to buy them. The police really don't care about fireworks as long as you use them only on the 4th and New Years.

Kentucky used to be like this. Yeah, it was illegal, but nobody cared. A few years ago, however, they started throwing people in JAIL.

I told you how it is in Georgia. Personally I don't care what it's like in Kentucky unless I have to move there. If it is of concern to you lobby to make them legal.

John Dibble. I feel exactly like you on a lot of issues. Am I a libertarian? I have sometimes wondered.

[John Dibble]

I think many people are libertarian at heart. You are probably a moderate little 'l' libertarian. I used to be somewhat of a liberal myself, then I found out about the libertarian viewpoint. Personally, I don't like lots of government programs and such at any level, but I think if we allow them they should stay at the state level(if one state wants a program, they should just do it and not use the federal government to force it on other states that don't want them). I actually joined the party just because I want to spread libertarian ideas(actually I was converted by a non-party member). I don't always agree with the party(foreign policy for instance), but I do agree for the most part.

To paraphrase our current presidential candidate, it's not being libertarian that makes people independent and cantankerous, it's being cantankerous and independent that makes them libertarian.

[??????????]

I think many people are libertarian at heart. You are probably a moderate little 'l' libertarian. I used to be somewhat of a liberal myself, then I found out about the libertarian viewpoint. Personally, I don't like lots of government programs and such at any level, but I think if we allow them they should stay at the state level(if one state wants a program, they should just do it and not use the federal government to force it on other states that don't want them). I actually joined the party just because I want to spread libertarian ideas(actually I was converted by a non-party member). I don't always agree with the party(foreign policy for instance), but I do agree for the most part.

To paraphrase our current presidential candidate, it's not being libertarian that makes people independent and cantankerous, it's being cantankerous and independent that makes them libertarian.

The only point I find myself disagreeing with you guys on is not taking federal funds to run your candidate. I understand your principles behind it but it makes for a losing chance.

[??????????]

This is what I scored on the www.lp.org website.




Your Personal Self-Government Score is 70%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%.

[John Dibble]

Well, looks like you're an ideological libertarian. Though for a more extensive test you might try this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It also irks me a bit that we can't take federal funds, but I think standing by our principles gives us something the two major parties don't have. The Libertarian Party could become a major political force in a decade or two, provided they play their cards right. They are probably the most viable out of all the third parties to become a major party. I think they could make themselves a viable choice if they win control of a state government.

[??????????]

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.49

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Economic is -10.00.

Social is -9.83.

This is as close as you can get to a perfect score. The reason social isn't a perfect -10 is that large corporations will support a liberal cause 1/60th of the time.

[John Dibble]

Looks like your two tests conflict. The political compass says you are moderately conservative if I remember the scoring correctly. The truth is probably between the two somewhere. Though it is really fun to take the test every few months to see how your views might have changed. Within the last six months I did a complete flip on economic issues.

[Brambila]

Economic Left/Right: 6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18

:-)

[opebo]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

I also disagree with licensing of cars..

How would you make sure that everyone is insured?

I wouldn't.  I don't care if they're insured, and its none of my business.

You a trial lawyer?  They would LOVE this.

Every fender bender leads to a lawauit.

There would be fewer lawsuits if many drivers were uninsured.  As it is now they sue an insurance company with deep pockets.  If they could only sue the typical destitute driver there would be no point.  Poverty is the best defense..  who said that?

[stry_cat]

Looks like your two tests conflict. The political compass says you are moderately conservative if I remember the scoring correctly. The truth is probably between the two somewhere. Though it is really fun to take the test every few months to see how your views might have changed. Within the last six months I did a complete flip on economic issues.

I'm not sure the Political Compas is a very good test.  I come out:
Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
whereas the WSPQ I'm a 100/100 Libertarian.

There are a lot of social/moral value type questions that if I thought it was the government's job to handle would make the test accurate.  For example sex outside of marriage is immoral, I strongly agree, but I don't want the goverment telling me what is moral or immoral.

[John Dibble]

Looks like your two tests conflict. The political compass says you are moderately conservative if I remember the scoring correctly. The truth is probably between the two somewhere. Though it is really fun to take the test every few months to see how your views might have changed. Within the last six months I did a complete flip on economic issues.

I'm not sure the Political Compas is a very good test.  I come out:
Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
whereas the WSPQ I'm a 100/100 Libertarian.

There are a lot of social/moral value type questions that if I thought it was the government's job to handle would make the test accurate.  For example sex outside of marriage is immoral, I strongly agree, but I don't want the goverment telling me what is moral or immoral.

That's a good point. The results are probably more accurate if your answers reflect how you feel government should handle the issue.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

[??????????]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

When Liberals lose a debate they tend to flee in such a way. You should know that by now.

[John Dibble]

I have seen an interesting development on this thread, which occurs in the real world on the subject.

M made an absurd statement about firearms not helping the Jews.  I pointed out the case of Sobidor and he stopped posting on this thread.

Al made an absurd statement about "pump action" shotguns being "high velocity" and I repeatedly asked him where he got this silly idea.  He first tried to change the subject, then, like M, stopped posting when I made the point so clear that even a mildly retarded ten year old could understand my point.

NickG also made an absurd statement that handguns 'weren't around' when the Second Amendment was ratified.  I posted a challenge to that statement which he also ignored.

It seems that with M. Al, and NickG,  fthey have a viscerial dislike of firearms, are greatly ignorant about firearms, and believe a number of things about fireamrs which simply are untrue.  

Seems a lot like the real world.  

When Liberals lose a debate they tend to flee in such a way. You should know that by now.

I've seen conservatives do it too. And I've seen the opposite extreme - the loser continues droning on and on even in defeat. At least the ones that go away stop wasting time.

[??????????]

My stance on Gun Control is the following.

-No Registration
-No Mandatory Locks
-1 Day Waiting period

Also, I have read that the companies are actually firing a round off of each rifle to get its imprint and they actually fingerprint the bullet! Is this true? Did it ever come to light or did it die out? This would be very disturbing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually I was just stating what the Law is over here, and not my personal opinion.
I have no idea whether or not a pump action shotgun should be thought of as a high velocity weapon, I do know that for legal purposes it is.
Probably something to do with IRA gun running.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do they have a law over there saying the earth is flat?

Shotguns, irrespective of action (which had absolutely NO bearing on the velocity) are of lower velocity than rifles and most handguns.

That you are ignorant of this elementary fact does not suprise me.

That you persist in making statements about a subject where you "know" things that are simply untrue says a lot about your belief system.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do they have a law over there saying the earth is flat?

Shotguns, irrespective of action (which had absolutely NO bearing on the velocity) are of lower velocity than rifles and most handguns.

That you are ignorant of this elementary fact does not suprise me.

That you persist in making statements about a subject where you "know" things that are simply untrue says a lot about your belief system.

Handguns are banned too.
I think that pump action weapons were banned because the IRA used 'em (could be wrong though).