Obama's speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

See, I have a slightly different take. I'm not really concerned with someone with 20 IQ points less than me having a gun near me because I have a gun on me.

---

Naw, that's only useful against someone who's obviously hostile. I'm more worried about dummies than criminals :)

That's where my bias comes in. I'm biased against the dummies who might make mistakes and don't want them having guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Ha, sure they do. They illustrate how you, excuse me, how Liberals are more concerned with their agenda than they are with the actual "problem". You won't solve any problems by trying to legislate the free will of law abiding people. Law abiding people are inherently not the problem because they are law abiding.

Guns aren't the problem. Would there be fewer gun deaths if there were no guns? Absolutely. And there are plenty of nations that have adopted that view as national law, so go live there if that appeals to you. America, however, was founded on a set of core principles that prohibit our government from taking certain rights away; the right to keep and bear arms is among them. The incredibly insightful men that created our Bill of Rights understood that in order for a truly free people to remain so, they absolutely had to retain the right to defend the rights that they drafted in the BoR. The Second Amendment is about the right to protect our way of life; it's not about restricting "certain types" of firearms because they are have the potential to be dangerous. The fact that they are dangerous is the whole point of insuring that they will not be infringed.

Once again, if the core tenets that make America unique don't appeal to you, the exit door is always open to you. Trying to change this country to fit a view that runs contrary to the very things that make us unique, is not, in my opinion, acceptable.

---

Your argument might hold water, TX expat, but for the childish open door comment to top it off .

...
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doghandler

Your argument might hold water, TX expat, but for the childish open door comment to top it off .

...
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.

---

Sorry but it wasn't childish, I'm stating a fact. There are places that have significant restrictions on firearms. If that's what you want/need to feel "safe" then going to live there is a simple way to get what you are seeking. Taking a fundamental, defined right away from the people, should not be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mulle46

where is personal accountability in that? Sounds like you are assigning blame on everyone and everything beside the shooter?

---

I assigned no blame. I stated the fact, the reality. Our society has many problems which
lead to a high murder rate. Wide availability of guns happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean
gun ownership should be abolished, not anymore than it means all the liquor stores should be shuttered.
It means only what it is. These are contributors to a high murder rate. Obviously when a crime occurs,
whether it is a gun crime or a DUI, the responsibility is or ought to be solely on the person who
did the crime. Prohibition clearly never works, whether it is booze, drugs, guns. I'm not arguing for
prohibition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I assigned no blame. I stated the fact, the reality. Our society has many problems which
lead to a high murder rate. Wide availability of guns happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean
gun ownership should be abolished, not anymore than it means all the liquor stores should be shuttered.
It means only what it is. These are contributors to a high murder rate. Obviously when a crime occurs,
whether it is a gun crime or a DUI, the responsibility is or ought to be solely on the person who
did the crime. Prohibition clearly never works, whether it is booze, drugs, guns. I'm not arguing for
prohibition.

---

Uh, wait... So you agree that gun laws are not the answer? Because to use your own comparison, nobody has ever made a serious push to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, or ban automobiles, and intoxicated drivers kill more people than guns do. So if it's fine to ignore the "tool" in one instance, we really don't have any business looking at the "tool" of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Uh, wait... So you agree that gun laws are not the answer? Because to use your own comparison, nobody has ever made a serious push to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, or ban automobiles, and intoxicated drivers kill more people than guns do. So if it's fine to ignore the "tool" in one instance, we really don't have any business looking at the "tool" of the other.

---

I stated that prohibition is not the answer. There is however a huge difference between
blanket prohibition as was tried with alcohol and with certain drugs, and what Scalia approved
of in Heller--- reasonable regulation. We do have the latter with all of our dram shop laws. See?
We have some of the regulation with existing laws in each of the states and for some items with the
Feds. Between prohibition and doing nothing there exists a wide universe of options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I stated that prohibition is not the answer. There is however a huge difference between
blanket prohibition as was tried with alcohol and with certain drugs, and what Scalia approved
of in Heller--- reasonable regulation. We do have the latter with all of our dram shop laws. See?
We have some of the regulation with existing laws in each of the states and for some items with the
Feds. Between prohibition and doing nothing there exists a wide universe of options.

---

Um... Dram Shop Laws are in place to establish liability when alcohol is sold to people under certain conditions. So if a bar sells alcohol to a minor and he gets drunk and injures himself or others, the party that sold the alcohol can be held accountable. If a bar continues to serve alcohol to someone who is very inebriated and they go drive off later and kill someone, they bar can be held responsible to an extent. So is that what you are looking for? You want the gun shops to be held accountable for injury caused by the guns they sell? Or maybe the gun manufacturers? Because Dram Shop laws are not regulation laws that apply to everyone; they are conditional laws based on the individual circumstance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Ha, sure they do. They illustrate how you, excuse me, how Liberals are more concerned with their agenda than they are with the actual "problem". You won't solve any problems by trying to legislate the free will of law abiding people. Law abiding people are inherently not the problem because they are law abiding.

Guns aren't the problem. Would there be fewer gun deaths if there were no guns? Absolutely. And there are plenty of nations that have adopted that view as national law, so go live there if that appeals to you. America, however, was founded on a set of core principles that prohibit our government from taking certain rights away; the right to keep and bear arms is among them. The incredibly insightful men that created our Bill of Rights understood that in order for a truly free people to remain so, they absolutely had to retain the right to defend the rights that they drafted in the BoR. The Second Amendment is about the right to protect our way of life; it's not about restricting "certain types" of firearms because they are have the potential to be dangerous. The fact that they are dangerous is the whole point of insuring that they will not be infringed.

Once again, if the core tenets that make America unique don't appeal to you, the exit door is always open to you. Trying to change this country to fit a view that runs contrary to the very things that make us unique, is not, in my opinion, acceptable.

---

Nice post TX expat.

I tried to click "like" more than once but nothing happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Sorry but it wasn't childish, I'm stating a fact. There are places that have significant restrictions on firearms. If that's what you want/need to feel "safe" then going to live there is a simple way to get what you are seeking. Taking a fundamental, defined right away from the people, should not be.

---

It's rude, disruptive and dangerous to formulate an argument and threaten expulsion for those who disagree. You never know who could be guarding the door.

...
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doghandler

It's rude, disruptive and dangerous to formulate an argument and threaten expulsion for those who disagree. You never know who could be guarding the door.

...
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.

---

Um yeah... Maybe you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I offered him a logical path to a place where firearms are more heavily legislated and out of the hands of the masses. Regardless of what you'd like to accuse me of, I most certainly didn't "threaten expulsion" or anything even remotely close. As if I could "threaten" such a thing anyway. So while you'd like to demonize what I suggested, my suggestion was nothing more 'threatening' than telling someone they should move to a new neighborhood if that person was complaining about feeling unsafe in their current neighborhood. I could care less if he agrees with me or not. I support the First Amendment as strongly as I support the Second. He has every right in the world to suggest whatever the heck he wants to, but when those suggestions go beyond what he's going subject himself to and delves into what he believes I should be subject to, I'm going to make my opinion known.

Personally, I'd say it's a heck of a lot more rude, disruptive and dangerous to make false accusations based on personal bias or lack of reading comprehension... I know it's a heck of a lot more dangerous to think that the rights of the people should be legislated away from all of the people simply because it would provide a false sense of security to some of the people.

Fair enough.

...
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Um... Dram Shop Laws are in place to establish liability when alcohol is sold to people under certain conditions. So if a bar sells alcohol to a minor and he gets drunk and injures himself or others, the party that sold the alcohol can be held accountable. If a bar continues to serve alcohol to someone who is very inebriated and they go drive off later and kill someone, they bar can be held responsible to an extent. So is that what you are looking for? You want the gun shops to be held accountable for injury caused by the guns they sell? Or maybe the gun manufacturers? Because Dram Shop laws are not regulation laws that apply to everyone; they are conditional laws based on the individual circumstance.

---

It appears on additional checking that I misused the term Dram Shop. I only meant that
we do regulate the sale of liquor.

While as a general matter I don't think your LGS should be liable for the use of what they have
sold, I think there certainly could well be situations in which a reasonable person would have
and should have known to not sell to the buyer, and if they have done so in a particularly aggravated
manner, I have no problem with hold them responsible for the consequences.

I'm fairly certain some gun shop owners regularly turn down an occasional customer who
could pass the NICS but who just makes them feel uncomfortable completing the sale.

This of course has nothing to do with Lanza as he didn't buy the guns he used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

It appears on additional checking that I misused the term Dram Shop. I only meant that
we do regulate the sale of liquor.

While as a general matter I don't think your LGS should be liable for the use of what they have
sold, I think there certainly could well be situations in which a reasonable person would have
and should have known to not sell to the buyer, and if they have done so in a particularly aggravated
manner, I have no problem with hold them responsible for the consequences.

I'm fairly certain some gun shop owners regularly turn down an occasional customer who
could pass the NICS but who just makes them feel uncomfortable completing the sale.

This of course has nothing to do with Lanza as he didn't buy the guns he used.

---

I'm sure you are correct, I'd bet there are plenty of gun shops, and even private parties, that cancel sales due to nothing more than getting a bad feeling about someone. On your other point, we already do have equitable laws concerning gun sales. We have age restrictions, background checks and certain use restrictions (i.e. carrying laws) concerning firearm sales, just like we have for alcohol (only no background checks for booze!). And as a further point, when someone has a problem with drinking and driving, we may put limits or restrictions on their availability to alcohol or automobiles, but we most certainly do not try and make restrictions to the law abiding public. The "punishment" always follows the individual. If that's the case with drunk driving, why would you apply any different standards to firearms? The firearm isn't any more responsible for the death than the automobile.