NRA

[The Dad Fisherman]

The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?

You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.

Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.

We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.

This is your logic.

We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.

TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?

You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.

Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.

We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.



This is your logic.

We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.

TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?

So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.

If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?

The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.

The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.

You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.

If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?

The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.

The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.

You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?

"So what body count is the right number? "

I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.

Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars. I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life. If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So what body count is the right number? "

I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.

THERE . . . IS . . . NO . . . CORRECT . . . MAGIC . . . NUMBER!!!!! All numbers eventually lead to ONE! You cannot have a sensible conversation about the humane number of deaths as the correct number. This is not a discussion about old-fashioned military operations where you throw superior numbers of troops at the enemy to overpower them with the expectant number of acceptable losses on your side. The victims of mass murders which are the subject of this conversation are not draftees or volunteers who expect to fight and possibly die. They are not even armed. Every death . . . every single death is A SINGLE sorrow to be mourned. If you begin to discuss how many must be killed before "we do something" the number will EVENTUALLY be whittled down to ONE. If you wish to ban certain guns because they are used to kill innocent people, ONE is the proper number. And since all guns can be used to quickly kill a single person, ALL guns would must then be banned. That is the logical conclusion if the discussion is about numbers.

Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars.

No, you can't save lives by banning anything we produce. The only thing that can save lives is banning death. Every minute you exist may be your last. And, unless you commit suicide, you don't know when, or how, you will die. Just about anything, including the food you eat, can kill you. What we try to do, I think, in a civil society, is to freely cooperate with one another so that we may individually pursue what we consider our happiness, and part of that cooperation is to refrain from willfully killing each other. We institute laws that punish crimes against each other. One murder is as punishable as 100 and no less an offense to civil society. It is the rogue, not the weapon, who offends. When you give greater weight to 100 deaths than to one, you diminish the loss of that death, and therefor you diminish the loss of all.

I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life.

Our way of life as instituted by the Founders placed weapons capable of resisting a tyrannical government at the top echelon of what is essential to that way. The Second Ammendment and what it guarantees is the final resort to securing that freedom.

If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.

You're still not understanding a key point in this discussion. I know you think that citizens defending themselves against the U.S. military is a silly idea. Maybe so. 250 million well-armed citizens would be formidable if they had the courage and purpose to fight. And included in that number would, I think, be included a good portion of that military. Would you, as a soldier, if the government proclaimed martial law with the aim of collecting all weapons from the citizens and imposing an open, despotic, anti-constitutional government, the Constitution you swore to protect and defend--would you serve that government or rebel against it. But that is not the immediate point of this discussion.

The point is that the Federal Government should not be banning the guns from the hands of the citizens. Whatever, if any, banning is done should be at the State level where the citizens have more direct say whether they CHOOSE to ban high capacity magazines, etc.