Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,457
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
In Europe the big attacks were bombs and guns. The truck attacks have typically not been as effective.
-
Features
Do I Have a Constitutional Right
- Thread starter T.G.G. Moogly
- Start date
Huh?
The second most deadly recent attack in Europe was a truck--and on a deaths per attacker basis it's by far the deadliest.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
You've already stated that you are against machine gun control, grenade control, mortar control and nerve agent control. What controls do you favor that might prevent such instances of mass murder?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
The right to bear arms, if it is about citizens having the right to take arms against their government, is moot. Taking arms against the forces that protect us is not reasonable under any set of presumptions. It is especially true if one is suggesting that by taking arms one can combat the government.
No reasonable person would go into battle with a military capable of launching missiles against one when one has no anti=missile system to protect oneself. One could not reasonably be expected to master a system requiring a company of soldiers to properly employ such a defense system.
Ergo one cannot be expected to even consider taking such a measure. All that can be expected with arms possession is the ability to kill others not members of a military or government,against one who are similarly limited in weapons choice and use.
RE the above post, no one armed as was the killer in Las Vegas can expect to even approach a military segment of government that has armor, arms of infinite capacity compare with that little automatic weapon demonstration. All one can reasonably expect is to kill unarmed , unsuspecting, citizens enjoying a movie or concert or dance experience. That is not a reason to have a right to bear arms. Such law is only reason for those who want to harm unarmed people to do so.
No reasonable person would go into battle with a military capable of launching missiles against one when one has no anti=missile system to protect oneself. One could not reasonably be expected to master a system requiring a company of soldiers to properly employ such a defense system.
Ergo one cannot be expected to even consider taking such a measure. All that can be expected with arms possession is the ability to kill others not members of a military or government,against one who are similarly limited in weapons choice and use.
RE the above post, no one armed as was the killer in Las Vegas can expect to even approach a military segment of government that has armor, arms of infinite capacity compare with that little automatic weapon demonstration. All one can reasonably expect is to kill unarmed , unsuspecting, citizens enjoying a movie or concert or dance experience. That is not a reason to have a right to bear arms. Such law is only reason for those who want to harm unarmed people to do so.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,457
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Than bombings (London, Manchester?, Madrid), and flat out attacks (Paris)?
Apparently you think "control" = "outright ban".
I was talking about the recent ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
In the cases I mentioned, yes, unless you are advocating that we should all be able to go into stores and purchase these things just like we purchase firearms. But we cannot because we are "banned" from doing exactly that, and stores are "banned" from carrying such arms. So "ban" is definitely the operative word here.
So what are you saying?
untermensche
Contributor
Somebody wants to ban nuclear weapons?
Or are some weapons OK to ban?
And where the line ends is the only question.
Or are some weapons OK to ban?
And where the line ends is the only question.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Of course you have a right not to be killed. And when you are, your rights will be violated. Give us a shout if that happens, I'll be behind you 100 percent.
untermensche
Contributor
The question is: Is his right to life more supreme than the right to bear certain arms?
They are not mutually exclusive.
You're showing what you mean by "gun control".
untermensche
Contributor
In Vegas they were.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
As has been pointed out several times, and dishonestly snipped several times, the right to bear arms does not include the right to use them aggressively.
I've seen it before, this weird argument that if you take Sane Citizen and give him a gun he automatically becomes a Slavering Psychopath, but if you take away that gun he reverts back to Sane Citizen.
This morning my 9 mil made me bacon and eggs for breakfast. They don't become killers if you raise them right.
untermensche
Contributor
If you got em and you don't give a shit you can use them any way you want.
If you don't have them and don't give a shit you have to do something else.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes.......
untermensche
Contributor
So a sane society would not let anybody have em to prevent the people who don't give a shit from using them.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Not sure why you don't want to answer. No biggie.