Right to Bear Arms

[Elio]

Well, I was hoping about a fruitful discussion about bearing arms.

But it seems that it has already been discussed...

Elio.

 

[Tony]

Well, I was hoping about a fruitful discussion about bearing arms.

Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world.

 

[Tricky]

Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world.

Yeah, Tony. We all feel safer knowing that such a calm, non-judgmental person as yourself could be packing heat.

 

[Elio]

Tony,

Impossible, the bigots and dogmatic anti-gun/anti-individual rights people can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment does indeed give the people the right to bear arms. They believe otherwise despite the facts, much like religious fanatics around the world.

Really ?

So you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots ?

Can you develop on that ?

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms...

Elio.

 

[Tony]

So you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots ?

No, people who can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms, are, by definition, bigots.

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms...

Where?

 

[Elio]

Tony,

No, people who can't accept the fact that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms, are, by definition, bigots.

Well, so you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots....

Why ?

Earlier, I gave a few examples why I think it is legitimate to restrain access to arms...


Where?

Here...

What kind of arms are we talking about, here ? Do you have the right to walk the streets with a loaded bazooka ? Do you have the right to walk the streets with a plastic bomb strapped around your waist ? If not, why ?

Elio.

 

[Tony]

Tony,
Well, so you assume that people who are against the 2nd amendment are bigots....

No, there's a difference. Being against the 2nd amendment (whatever that means) and thinking the 2nd amendment says something it doesn't are two different things.

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a loaded bazooka ?

I don't know, I'd imagine not, but I haven't seen a law against it.

Do you have the right to walk the streets with a plastic bomb strapped around your waist ?

By "plastic bomb" I'll assume you mean pastic explosives, correct me if I am wrong.

And no, I don't think people are allowed to walk around the street with a bomb.

If not, why?

Because it makes the police state uncomfortable (for a variety of reasons).

 

[Tricky]

From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I'm about a 35

 

[Tony]

Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

Is it a scale of what you think it's acceptable for people to carry or own? I didn't know you thought it was acceptable for people to carry hunting weapons.

 

[Elio]

Tricky,

From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I would say :

Hunting weapons :

As long as you have a license and you don't carry your hunting weapons on the streets. And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to hunt...

Self-defense weapons :

As long that you actually have a need to have self-defense weapons... And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to have weapons for self-defense purposes...

Elio.

 

[Grammatron]

From an old thread on this subject. Where do you stand on this scale from one to 100 on what you think it is acceptible for people to carry.

I'm about a 35

That's a rather vague scale. If I had to answer I would say I am 55.

 

[Tricky]

Is it a scale of what you think it's acceptable for people to carry or own? I didn't know you thought it was acceptable for people to carry hunting weapons.

I should have said "own" and I should have specified "what do you think people should be able to own."

Obviously, I don't think you should be able to carry hunting weapons everywhere, say, like not into a bank, for example.

 

[Tony]

Tricky, I would say :

Hunting weapons :

As long as you have a license and you don't carry your hunting weapons on the streets. And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to hunt...

Self-defense weapons :

As long that you actually have a need to have self-defense weapons... And as long as it has been democraticly accepted you have the right to have weapons for self-defense purposes...

Elio.

Is your support for slavery dependant on whether it is "democratically accepted"?

 

[Tricky]

That's a rather vague scale. If I had to answer I would say I am 55.

I know. It was the best I could do. Last time I posted it, I got all kinds of "gun experts" asking me to define what "military style" meant, and the conversation degenerated from there.

But I think most people (like you) can select a reasonable rating based on my admittedly uninformed categories.

 

[Tony]

I'd say I would be somewhere between 80 and 100 but closer to 80.

 

[Elio]

Tony,

Is your support for slavery dependant on whether it is "democratically accepted"?

You mean my acceptance ?

Yes.

I would take the chance...

What's the alternative ?

Elio.

 

[Tony]

Tony,

You mean my acceptance ?

Yes.

I would take the chance...

You'd accept slavery as long as it was democratically accepted? How the hell can that be justifiable?

 

[Elio]

Tony,

You'd accept slavery as long as it was democratically accepted? How the hell can that be justifiable?

Justifiable to who ?

It is possible that a dictator might come up with laws that are more respectful towards human rights than the majority of people.

Again, I'm ready to take the chance...

the more democratic a society is, the more abiding it is towards human rights....

Again, what is the alternative ?

Elio.

 

[Tony]

Justifiable to who ?

To yourself. How can you justify accepting slavery?

It is possible that a dictator might come up with laws that are more respectful towards human rights than the majority of people.

It's possible.

Again, I'm ready to take the chance...

Willing to take a chance with slavery? Really, what are you talking about?

Again, what is the alternative ?

The alternative to slavery? I dunno, freedom perhaps?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I don't usually take part in gun threads. This may be my first and last.

What are people's take on the Constitutional right to bear arms?

I'm glad we have the right to own guns. I'm unhappy with the way some people choose to handle them.

I definitely like to hear people's views and perspectives. I was watching the TV movie 44 Minutes about the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. The two armed bank robbers were so heavily armed that they overwhelmed the police. There was a scene in the movie where an officer went to a gun store to get assault rifes and automatic weapons. The owner gave him various automatic weapons and sniper rifles. The officer was stunned and commented how people can just walk in and buy these weapons? I have no problem with the right to bear arms but the fact that someone can go into a shop and buy a high powered sniper rifle bothers me a little bit.

I think that a police department the size of the LAPD should have equipped their officers with automatic weapon and other tools which would allow them to meet most reasonably expect threats.

Bank robbers with body armor and automatic weapons, though out of the ordinary, should have been forseeable, but considered unlikely based on previous experience (zero occurences).

Unfortunately, it was probably not within budget constraints to properly equip all their officers with the proper protection and weaponry (I admit, I'm just guessing here). The risk/benefit analysis doesn't seem to flesh out very well, IMHO.

I think there were likely lots of bad decisions made by the LAPD also. Similar to a high speed auto chase, they could have just let them escape rather than risk the lives of more citizens and officers, but, having been a police officer myself years ago, I can understand the emotion involved in trying to "get the dirt bag who just shot my fellow officer".

Bottom line........I'm not sure there is a "right" analysis of this incident, nor is there one for the overall gun control argument.

Thanks for listening though.