Well, I'd assumed that the police officers would obey the law and be issued your deathtrap gun.
"If you'd read my post, you'd see that the lock mechanism would be triggered by the release of the grip. If there was an intruder in your home, why would someone put their gun down? Your reasoning is faulty."
I read your post. Have you ever tried to maintain a constant pressure on something you grip in your hand for an extended period of time? In order for your grip to work, a user would have to maintain a tight grip on his gun for as long as he/she wanted it to be operable.
There are numerous problems with this concept.
sensitivity & strength -- some people can manage strong grips for a time.. many can't. old people with arthritis, people with gripping problems (you know, there are people who need special tools just to open mason jars? my gf is one of them) Hands cramp fairly easily, and maintaining pressure is not as easy as it appears. People's guns will disarm as they shift hand position to keep from cramping.
To create a mechanism which will be sensitive enough to detect hand pressure yet rugged enough not to break under greater than average pressure, which can be used repeatedly, and which will not be TOO sensitive to arm simply under jostling, is a difficult proposition. You will need one which can be operated by a 90-lb grandmother as well as by a football linebacker.
I noticed that you finally had the temerity to say exactly what you think of the Constitution and its founders... that their ideas and opinions and intent are no longer relevant.
This is great news. We can trash the whole system now. I can expect to be installed as Dictator any day now.
I KNEW that liberals had a hard time learning history, but I didn't know it was THIS bad. From the writings of the time, it is quite clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights, Madison et al, intended for the first ten amendments to be inviolable, for all time. Misuse of the ability to make amendments has happened, as it did with prohibition, with disastrous results.
As for your babbling about criminals... criminals, Being people who go against the social conract, ABROGATE their Constitutional rights. That's what Jail IS. In jail you have little 1st, no 2nd, and very little of the other rights. You can't vote. You can't 'peaceable assemble.' You are subjected to search and seizure. That's JAIL.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 27, 2001).]
quote:Well, I'd assumed that the police officers would obey the law and be issued your deathtrap gun.
All guns are deathtraps, you moron.
However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon. Keep the gun at the police station while officers' are off duty (under lock-and-key) and issue it to them when they're coming on for their shift. Honestly, how do these simple solutions get past you?
I understand that Colt has developed a "smart" gun which can take a "finger-print" of the owner, and will only activate if the finger-print matches the owner. Once Colt gets it to actually shoot, too, all your problems with a trigger lock will be done.
quote:I read your post. Have you ever tried to maintain a constant pressure on something you grip in your hand for an extended period of time? In order for your grip to work, a user would have to maintain a tight grip on his gun for as long as he/she wanted it to be operable.
Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure. Yeeesh.
quote:To create a mechanism which will be sensitive enough to detect hand pressure yet rugged enough not to break under greater than average pressure, which can be used repeatedly, and which will not be TOO sensitive to arm simply under jostling, is a difficult proposition. You will need one which can be operated by a 90-lb grandmother as well as by a football linebacker.
Difficult is not impossible. It's also kind of hard to imagine a 90-lb grandmother and a football linebacker using the same type of gun. There's a big difference between a Saturday Night Special and a Desert Eagle.
quote:I noticed that you finally had the temerity to say exactly what you think of the Constitution and its founders... that their ideas and opinions and intent are no longer relevant.
First, let me ask you a question. What will life be like in the 23rd century? Would it be okay for you to force your ideas and opinions and intent on people who will live far different lives and deal with much different issues than people in the 21st century?
The founders have been dead for over 200 years. While it's always nice to look back at their ideas and opinions, it's important to remember that we're not living in the past. Also, the Constitution is law. Not the Federalist Papers.
The times have changed, and thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well. And, oh yes, the Federalist Papers aren't law. Maybe you need to start living in the Twenty-First century. And, once again, the Federalist Papers aren't law. The opinions of the Founders aren't law. The intent of the Founders isn't law. The Constitution is law. Learn it. Accept it. Be one with it.
quote:This is great news. We can trash the whole system now. I can expect to be installed as Dictator any day now.
And you accuse me of not following the basic precepts of the Constitution ...
quote:I KNEW that liberals had a hard time learning history, but I didn't know it was THIS bad. From the writings of the time, it is quite clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights, Madison et al, intended for the first ten amendments to be inviolable, for all time. Misuse of the ability to make amendments has happened, as it did with prohibition, with disastrous results.
Where has the Second Ammendment been violated? Has the Federal Government banned guns? Have guns been siezed? Have laws been passed telling you can not own guns? No. And again, you seem to skip over the "regulated" part of the Ammendment. No, no, that's okay. Only read what you want to.
quote:As for your babbling about criminals... criminals, Being people who go against the social conract, ABROGATE their Constitutional rights. That's what Jail IS. In jail you have little 1st, no 2nd, and very little of the other rights. You can't vote. You can't 'peaceable assemble.' You are subjected to search and seizure. That's JAIL.
And yet those who have served their time in jail never regain their right to the 2nd Ammendment. That's part of regulating the Ammendment. I know you agree with not giving those who come out of jail guns, but can how you support this obvious violation of rights unless you acknowledge that one little word: regulate?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
quote: However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon. Keep the gun at the police station while officers' are off duty (under lock-and-key) and issue it to them when they're coming on for their shift. Honestly, how do these simple solutions get past you?
Police are required to carry their weapons off duty, in case of emergency.
And while I make take the liberal view on some things, let me make it clear that I would neer support scraping or changeing the Constitution. It stands up as well now as it did 200+ years ago. When it is broken down and changed, I'll go live somewhere else.
posted
But the point is that the Constitution has been changed. Frequently. Where do you think all those Ammendments came from? Why do you think it stands up so well? It's essentially the same document, but it has changed to account for the 200 years it has survived. And it will continue to be changed.
And that is a tribute to the founding fathers: that they knew that the Constitution would need to be changed and updated to keep up with times. To pretend that people who lived over 200 years ago know what is best for this country today is the craziest thing I've ever heard.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]
quote:Police are required to carry their weapons off duty, in case of emergency.
As long as they take precautions with the gun when it's not on their person ... the whole point of the trigger lock is to make sure people don't accidently kill themselves. You think a child really knows what'll happen if they pull the trigger?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Oh, that's REALLY erudite. Can we please stay off the name-calling? Otherwise I might have to say something like: Tell me, you tiny-brained fool, do you still french-kiss your mama with that mouth?
We've already established that guns are neutral, inanimate objects, and are no more 'deathtraps' than anything else which, if used improperly, can lead to unnecessary death. Hell, a Ford Pinto is a bigger safety risk, and wading pools kill more children.
"However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon."
Does this mean that the police would carry the regular, hazardous guns, that you didn't really mean ALL guns, but just those ones NOT controlled by the government, or just that you weren't aware that the police carry guns while off-duty?
"Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure. Yeeesh."
And you base this on your experience in dangerous situations? I don't. However, I know people who couldn't, under any circumstances. That's enough for me.
"Difficult is not impossible."
Granted. But let's wait until somebody actually manages to do it successfully. Meanwhile, I'd bet my money heavily against their ability to do it.
"First, let me ask you a question. What will life be like in the 23rd century?"
Life will be different. PEOPLE, however, will not change significantly. They will still be entitled to the same, unaltered rights as one finds in the constitution. Perhaps other ones, but those will not change. The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.
"And, oh yes, the Federalist Papers aren't law. Maybe you need to start living in the Twenty-First century. And, once again, the Federalist Papers aren't law. The opinions of the Founders aren't law. The intent of the Founders isn't law. The Constitution is law."
I never said the Fed. Papers were law. They, and other papers were and ARE, however, the BEST way of understanding what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to determine when it looks at Constitutionality. The Supreme Court does not simply rely on the letter of the Constitution, but on what it INTERPRETS it to mean.. but these interpretations are to be determined IN CONTEXT to what the Founders and Framers believed. The Federalists Papers, among others, ARE that context.
'Regulated', in 1787, incidentally, ment the same as 'maintained' and 'upkept,' NOT regulated by regulations and legislation. You can look that up, too.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:Oh, that's REALLY erudite. Can we please stay off the name-calling? Otherwise I might have to say something like: Tell me, you tiny-brained fool, do you still french-kiss your mama with that mouth?
How nice. You ask me to please refrain from name calling, then do the same yourself. Tsk-tsk. But point taken, and I apologize.
quote:We've already established that guns are neutral, inanimate objects, and are no more 'deathtraps' than anything else which, if used improperly, can lead to unnecessary death. Hell, a Ford Pinto is a bigger safety risk, and wading pools kill more children.
Which is why I'm for the elimination of Ford Pinto's and wading pools. Strangely enough though, I'm not for the elimination of guns: (well, I am, but I'm willing to be realistic) I'm just for them being regulated.
quote:Does this mean that the police would carry the regular, hazardous guns, that you didn't really mean ALL guns, but just those ones NOT controlled by the government, or just that you weren't aware that the police carry guns while off-duty?
This means that because police officers have a more reasonable assumption to be placed in danger, they don't need the trigger locks. It's also based on the reasonable assumption that a police officer will take better care to make sure their child won't find it then the average joe-schmoe, thus negating the use of a trigger lock. While some departments require officers to carry a weapon all of the time, many do not.
quote:And you base this on your experience in dangerous situations? I don't. However, I know people who couldn't, under any circumstances. That's enough for me.
What would be your alternative?
quote:Granted. But let's wait until somebody actually manages to do it successfully. Meanwhile, I'd bet my money heavily against their ability to do it.
We can put humans on the moon, we can blow up entire cities, and even build machines to fly, but we can't build a safer gun? I find that a tad hard to believe.
quote:Life will be different. PEOPLE, however, will not change significantly. They will still be entitled to the same, unaltered rights as one finds in the constitution. Perhaps other ones, but those will not change. The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.
No one denies this. One simply argues that the rights alloted to them in today's version of the Constitution might not be enough, or might be too little. Or that certain rights might endanger other rights. Certainly, the idea of un-regulated gun-rights to all endangers lives. Heck, you even agree with me on this point: or do you not agree that criminals out of jail should be forbidden from owning firearms? I point out that this is regulation of the Second Ammendment.
quote:I never said the Fed. Papers were law. They, and other papers were and ARE, however, the BEST way of understanding what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to determine when it looks at Constitutionality. The Supreme Court does not simply rely on the letter of the Constitution, but on what it INTERPRETS it to mean.. but these interpretations are to be determined IN CONTEXT to what the Founders and Framers believed. The Federalists Papers, among others, ARE that context.
What about when the situation is beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have possibly imagined? And no, you didn't say they were law, but Omega implied it. My point still stands: when faced with situations beyond the Founders and Framers experience and opinions ...
Well, here's an example.
First of Two, does the Second Ammendment say anything about the restriction of this right to someone who has committed a crime, served his time, and been re-introduced into society? Yet do we both not support keeping guns out of the hands of those who have been to jail? Is this not a regulation? How can you support this yet argue that the Second Ammendment can't be regulated?
quote:'Regulated', in 1787, incidentally, ment the same as 'maintained' and 'upkept,' NOT regulated by regulations and legislation. You can look that up, too.
Is this 1787? No -- it's 2001. Look, as far as I know, there are two major viewpoints on the Constitution.
Omega is one of those viewpoints. He's the same guy who thinks NASA and interstate Highways are un-Constitutional. Apparently, although I'm sure you disagree about NASA, you agree that the opinions of those long dead should influence how the Constitution is ruled on.
Well, that's fine. But to pretend that the Constitution shouldn't adapt to situations that the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing of or predicting or forming opinions on is ... short-sighted, IMHO. Did the Founding Fathers really intend for Americans living in 2001 to live their lives like they did in 1787? No. Did they intend for those same rights to exist? No, of course not. People used to have a right to buy slaves. Rights change, society changes, and the Constitution changes along with.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]
quote:(WJZ) Police in Howard County get an anonymous tip about a student allegedly planning to sell a gun. The tip was phoned into a school violence hotline. As a result of the call, officers investigated and arrested two 15-year-old freshmen from Hammond High School. One of the students was allegedly going to sell one of his father's handguns to the other. Police say the gun was never brought to school. The school violence tip line number is 410 313-3250. The hotline is monitored 24 hours a day by Howard County Police.
Just to prove my point -- if this father had had his gun in a safe, this incident might never almost have happened. This is why there should be regulation -- so that this kid would never even think of doing this. You speak of illegal guns in the streets? No, they're legal guns, aquired illegally by incidents like this.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
I decided to exclude myself from this argument when it became exclusively "American" but do not assume that you are the world, for you will be gravely mistaken. The world will solve their problems however it deems necessary and I fail to see how YOUR consitution and YOUR founding fathers have ANYTHING to do with it.
------------------ "Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
posted
As if we haven't been over that enough either. And besides, when did anyone in this discussion mention solutions for anything or anyone other than themselves. The main proponents in this are Jeff, Jeff, Rob & Omega , all of whom are American.
Sure, we foreigners interject, but only for biscuits and the occasional jab at the Man-Train. For some, literally.
------------------ "Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
quote:I decided to exclude myself from this argument when it became exclusively "American" but do not assume that you are the world, for you will be gravely mistaken. The world will solve their problems however it deems necessary and I fail to see how YOUR consitution and YOUR founding fathers have ANYTHING to do with it.
Well, obviously, they've nothing to do with how other countries deal with the problem. But in case you hadn't noticed, these school shootings have been ... in America! Therefore, this discussion is about America's problem with guns and what to do about it.
Other nations will do what they deem best, and you'll notice NO-ONE anywhere in this thread is saying what OTHER countries should do about it. Do you see that? However, in America, our long-dead founding fathers and Constitution DO have something to do with it.
One of the things we're hotly debating is HOW they have something to do with it. But, this is purely a debate on America's situation, and it's not a judgement or indication of action for any other nation. ::shrugg:: Look, whenever the topic of "guns" come up, this debate is going to happen ...
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
No, we don't. We may have a few more decades. Look, none of us can or will EVER agree on what's right for this country. We can't even agree to dissagree without resorting to bashing each other over the head with our ideological bats. So we should just take a page from what the Czechs and Slovaks did a several years back and just go our own seperate ways before it goes way past ugly and we wind up shooting at each other like Yugoslavia did.
------------------ In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!
posted
I disagree. We've had these disagreements for the whole run of the country. We've already had a civil war. We got through it somewhat okay. This country isn't going to split over guns, or drug policy, or abortions.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic