Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.
Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure.
Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...
Rob said 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.
You said Difficult is not impossible.
Design one.
What would be your alternative?
You can't even DESCRIBE a trigger lock that would protect children as you claim without reducing the functionality of the weapon as a defensive measure, much less design one. Until then, I don't NEED an alternative to your proposal. The way things are is better than they would be after your proposed change. Change is not ALWAYS good, Jeff. Yeah, the way things are could stand improvement, but what you describe would not lead to 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?
Sure, we can build a safer gun, but not without compromising it's abilities as a defensive weapon. Putting a man on the moon is simple, compaired with creating a weapon that can determine whether the person firing it really NEEDS to, by... what, mind-reading? Heck, if we could design weapons like that, we could design them to be able to tell whether the person holding them was mentally unstable or had criminal intent, and simply not let THEM fire weapons, and then we wouldn't need laws at all. But then, we can't do that. You compare one area of technology to a completely unrelated area. Non sequitor.
The Federalist Papers aren't law, doofus.
Positive proof that you do not read the posts you're replying to. QW asked if there was some way we could get inside the founders' heads. I answered him. READ.
And no, you didn't say they were law, but Omega implied it.
I did no such thing. NEVER work off of perceived implications in your arguments, Jeff. You loose face when you're shown to have been wrong for a dozen posts.
That word: regulated allows the local, state, and Federal governments to make laws pertaining to gun ownership.
No, it DOESN'T. The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why it's called the "Bill of Rights": it lists the rights the people have that the government can't touch. Read the entire second ammendment, Jeff. Try diagraming the sentence, if that helps. If you knew a thing about the language you type in, you'd see that your argument is about as specious as my saying that the fact that the first ammendment contains the words "law abridging freedom of speech" gives Congress the power to do pass just that. You have to read the whole thing, Jeff, or you can't understand the meaning.
Look at it this way. The second ammendment can be divided into two statements:
"A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well.
FINALLY! You admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution! A process which is obviously blatantly unconstitutional! Thank you. I must write that down somewhere for future reference.
But the point is that the Constitution has been changed. Frequently.
Quantity is not quality. If you count the Bill of Rights as part of the original Constitution, what major has been changed? Aside from increases in the guarentee of basic freedoms to all humans living in the country, the only truely major changes have been prohibition, which was repealed; the popular election of Senators, which doesn't change all that much; and the income tax, which was never legitimately ratified (but that's for another thread), and still doesn't change all that much. The basic precepts of the Constitution still stand firm after two centuries, and I see no reason why they will not continue to do so.
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.
No, it's not. Criminals have never, in the history of mankind, been considered to have had all the rights of every other citizen. Same with children. They are the two groups whose rights there are specific exceptions to in the Constitution. In fact, I would contend that you effectively have NEVER repaid your "debt to society" if you commit a crime beyond a certain arbitrary point, and you're simply on parole for the rest of your life, subject to any applicable laws regarding the restriction of your rights.
This is why there should be regulation -- so that this kid would never even think of doing this.
What regulation, praytell, do you propose that would have prevented this? And DON'T say a regulation forcing all guns to be kept in safes. He left the gun where his kid could get to it. He obviously wasn't smart enough to train his kid in the proper use and respect for a gun. The father was irresponsible, and yet again, if he's that irresponsible, he's irresponsible enough to not place his gun in a safe, and thus the regulation wouldn't have helped.
Really, how many times to I have to repeat these arguments before you pay attention?
You speak of illegal guns in the streets? No, they're legal guns, aquired illegally by incidents like this.
Buh? A legal gun acquired illegally is an ILLEGAL GUN.
Rob:
The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.
Right on. Freedom is not an imposition. It is the natural state of mankind. All other states are impositions.
QW:
Maybe it's time for this country to break up along the lines of what the Soviet Union did. 'Cos sooner or later it will do exactly that.
There are MAJOR major differences between us and the USSR. There is a single, unifying American culture, as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated. We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite. We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside. We are NOTHING like the Soviets, nor will we be.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
"There is a single, unifying American culture"
Eh? There AREN'T differences in culture in people from Deep Texas, anyone from Harlem or Brooklyn, someone from wherever you guys fish and a Pennsylvania Dutch dude?
You have as many 'cultures' as the Former Soviet Union had, but two very important differences. You have communication between peoples, and a government that recognizes each equally, for the most part. And, you weren't divided into seperate entities before joining together in confederation. (Well, not so adamantly as to provide current-day regionalism)
------------------ "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:Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.
You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?
quote:Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...
Fine. I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked. Perhaps some sort of "button" on the front of the gun-handle, where you would be gripping anyway instead of integrated into the handle itself?
quote:Design one.
I'm not an engineer. I can't build a space-shuttle or fly a plane, either. But others can. And if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
quote:You can't even DESCRIBE a trigger lock that would protect children as you claim without reducing the functionality of the weapon as a defensive measure, much less design one. Until then, I don't NEED an alternative to your proposal. The way things are is better than they would be after your proposed change. Change is not ALWAYS good, Jeff. Yeah, the way things are could stand improvement, but what you describe would not lead to it.
Well then, please, fill us in with the wonder that is your mind. What would you do, Omega? Posted March 27, 2001 10:17 PM from 216.80.152.*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK: All guns are deathtraps, you moron.
Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.
Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure.
Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...
Rob said 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.
You said Difficult is not impossible.
Design one.
What would be your alternative?
You can't even DESCRIBE a trigger lock that would protect children as you claim without reducing the functionality of the weapon as a defensive measure, much less design one. Until then, I don't NEED an alternative to your proposal. The way things are is better than they would be after your proposed change. Change is not ALWAYS good, Jeff. Yeah, the way things are could stand improvement, but what you describe would not lead to 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?
quote:Sure, we can build a safer gun, but not without compromising it's abilities as a defensive weapon. Putting a man on the moon is simple, compaired with creating a weapon that can determine whether the person firing it really NEEDS to, by... what, mind-reading?
Not at all. While that certainly would be preferable, what the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk (I think we can both agree that both accidental shootings and drunks with guns are a bad idea).
quote:Heck, if we could design weapons like that, we could design them to be able to tell whether the person holding them was mentally unstable or had criminal intent, and simply not let THEM fire weapons, and then we wouldn't need laws at all. But then, we can't do that. You compare one area of technology to a completely unrelated area. Non sequitor.
Um -- you're the one who brought up mind-reading technology, dude, not me.
quote:Positive proof that you do not read the posts you're replying to. QW asked if there was some way we could get inside the founders' heads. I answered him. READ.
The Founder's have been dead for over 200 years. To assume that their thoughts and opinions from a different time are relevent to what we're going through today is ridiculous. You sure they'd think the 2nd Ammendment was such a hot idea if they knew of Colombine?
quote:I did no such thing. NEVER work off of perceived implications in your arguments, Jeff. You loose face when you're shown to have been wrong for a dozen posts.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times? You've contradicted yourself ... how many times? You bitch about people who use ad-hominems, and then use them yourself. Who are you to talk about losing face?
quote:No, it DOESN'T. The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why it's called the "Bill of Rights": it lists the rights the people have that the government can't touch.
Has the government banned handguns? No? Wow! Then you've still got that right, don't you? Oh: news-flash -- how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right? Try thinking things through sometimes, okay?
"
quote:A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says. Like the time you inserted your own words into one of UM's statements, you're making stuff up again. But ...
Has the government banned handguns? No, you can still buy them. But doesn't the government restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms when it refuses to allow ex-convicts to own them? GASP! Guess you're in support of ex-cons owning guns then, huh?
quote:You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.
Right. Sure, Omega-san. Again, if the government can't regulate the rights of the people to own guns, who do ex-cons not get guns? I mean, it's their right! It spells it out quite clearly. Please elaborate on this point, because, I don't see how you can make the argument that ex-cons can't own guns ... unless you admit that the government can regulate them.
quote:FINALLY! You admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution! A process which is obviously blatantly unconstitutional! Thank you. I must write that down somewhere for future reference.
No I didn't. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to modern laws. That's what it's been doing. Stop making shit up. And please promise to take a Constiutional Law class in college, okay? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. That's pretty basic knowledge, and I'm surprised to see you don't know that. Maybe homeschooling isn't all it's cracked up to be, huh?
quote:Quantity is not quality. If you count the Bill of Rights as part of the original Constitution, what major has been changed? Aside from increases in the guarentee of basic freedoms to all humans living in the country, the only truely major changes have been prohibition, which was repealed; the popular election of Senators, which doesn't change all that much; and the income tax, which was never legitimately ratified (but that's for another thread), and still doesn't change all that much. The basic precepts of the Constitution still stand firm after two centuries, and I see no reason why they will not continue to do so.
Right. Remind me: you're the nut who thinks NASA and interstate highways are un-Constitutional, right? Grow up. Constitutional Law 101 please.
quote:No, it's not. Criminals have never, in the history of mankind, been considered to have had all the rights of every other citizen. Same with children. They are the two groups whose rights there are specific exceptions to in the Constitution. In fact, I would contend that you effectively have NEVER repaid your "debt to society" if you commit a crime beyond a certain arbitrary point, and you're simply on parole for the rest of your life, subject to any applicable laws regarding the restriction of your rights.
That's nice. Tough, though, the Constitution doesn't say "everyone but criminals" or "ex-criminals" may not own a gun. It says ALL citizens have that right. Why do you ignore that? Like it or not, this is government regulation. Admit it.
quote:What regulation, praytell, do you propose that would have prevented this? And DON'T say a regulation forcing all guns to be kept in safes. He left the gun where his kid could get to it. He obviously wasn't smart enough to train his kid in the proper use and respect for a gun. The father was irresponsible, and yet again, if he's that irresponsible, he's irresponsible enough to not place his gun in a safe, and thus the regulation wouldn't have helped.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
quote:Buh? A legal gun acquired illegally is an ILLEGAL GUN.
I'm not saying it's not. But I'm saying that for all your talk about illegal guns, you seem to forget that they were legally purchased.
quote:Right on. Freedom is not an imposition. It is the natural state of mankind. All other states are impositions.
No one accused Rob of forcing rights on people. The argument is that people who lived 200 years ago don't know what's going on today and probably aren't the best to go crying to for help. Unless you believe in ghosts ...
quote:There is a single, unifying American culture,
No, actually, there isn't.
quote:as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated
You forgot about our Civil War, Omega ... of course, it was a good thing. That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
quote:We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite
Too bad our leaders are from the ruling elite.
quote:We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside.
I beg your fucking pardon? You speak from ignorance, but I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Omega, I'm not trying to restrict the rights of people to own guns, I just want to make sure they're used properly. I want devices to prevent accidental shootings, I want parents to educate their children about firearms, and I want everyone who owns one to understand Federal, State, and local laws in their area about how one may use theirs legally. I do believe First agrees with me on many of these points.
Now, if you don't think the government can "regulate" guns, hey, that's your business. But I live in the real world, so does First, and we both understand that it can and it does. So, until you either enter the real world or take a constitutional law course, you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at. I find you humerous beyond words. When I have a bad day, I come to Flare, surf up your posts, and laugh my ass off.
But what was I saying? Omega, sometimes I don't get you. Hell, I never get you? Poacher of freedom? Hardly. Speak not of which you do not know, little-one.
------------------ 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).]
posted
There AREN'T differences in culture in people from Deep Texas, anyone from Harlem or Brooklyn, someone from wherever you guys fish and a Pennsylvania Dutch dude?
No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
"You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?"
People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?
------------------ "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:People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?
If you can come up with a way to make it hard(er) for a person to commit suicide with Tylenol, sure. Guns make suicide ridiculously easy.
------------------ 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:No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.
Um. No there isn't. You want to explain what you think it is?
------------------ 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
------------------ "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.
------------------ 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
This isn't a jab at "He-who-I will-not-name". Just some random streams of consciousness.
"There are MAJOR major differences between us and the USSR."
That's true.
"There is a single, unifying American culture, as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated."
The only thing holding this country together is the almighty dollar. BTW, ever been to Miami?
"We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite."
*yawn* I voted for John Sheridan and Delenn. (SERIOUSLY!)
"We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside. We are NOTHING like the Soviets, nor will we be."
Basic? Why not MORE? We're supposed to be a democracy. Oh. I forgot. We're not a democracy, we're a Federal Republic.
- Personal, I couldn't give a rat fuck about gun control, abortion, rights for this group, that group...whatever. This country is so beyond help that the fact it HASN'T exploded into another Yugoslavia borders on the ludicrious.
So i'm tossing my hat the ring for supporting First for dictator. The country's yours. Enjoy.
------------------ In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!
You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?
The rule doesn't apply if the tool's intended by its user to do harm to same.
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked.
Any particular engineering reason why you're so sure?
Perhaps some sort of "button" on the front of the gun-handle, where you would be gripping anyway instead of integrated into the handle itself?
You'd still need some way to have it unlocked immediately in an emergency situation. You have two contradictory goals: you want to prevent a gun from being fired by a child; you must ensure that this does not compromise the instantaneous defensive use of a weapon if necessary. Your goals are mutually exclusive at our current level of technology. We can't build guns that read minds. If you COULD, then I'd be all for it, but again, I deal in reality, not hypotheticals.
And if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
Completely seperate technologies and unreasonable requirements, perhaps?
what the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, and I admitted it immediately. You've been shown wrong... how many dozen times now? And you have yet to admit a single one.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) Even in your flawed "reading", the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
B) A criminal has no rights to regulate.
Now are you going to respond to all my points to which you made this response? WITHOUT changing the subject, this time? They include the following:
1) The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights.
2) You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
You: That's not what it says.
What changed in my rewording? What of the meaning is different? The words are different, but the meaning is the same. Therefore, yes, that IS what it says.
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution.]
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well
Looks like it to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
Even though any trigger lock that tough would have eliminated the gun as a useful tool for legitimate purposes.
And if you think there's any such thing as a security device that a fifteen-year-old can't get past that his parents can, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What? The non-existant right to seceed? The federal government has the right to use federal troops to put down insurrections, remember?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
we never executed our own citizens (Ohio State)
If you don't see the difference between actions ordered by the government, and unauthorized actions by officers of that goverment, then you, sir, are a total moron.
Oh, wait, I guess you saw that mistake and edited it out of your post. Oh, well. You're still a total moron.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
*L*
Riiiight. Listen, buddy, I know more about this country, about human nature, about logic, about history, about freedom than you ever will. I'm more mature, more rational, more intelligent, more grounded in reality, and more arrogant about it all than you have the capacity to comprehend. You're no match for me. You have YET to make a real point against my beliefs. If the government's going to "regulate" ANYTHING outside of its Constitutional powers, it should be the very existance of people like you.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
Design one.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
So do I. Care to try and legislate it?
But I live in the real world
You just get funnier and funnier.
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at
Oh, is THAT why you can never type a comprehensible response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked
Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence whatsoever, nor should it you.
if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
A) They're completely different technologies.
B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.
B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
C) You have yet to respond to the following point:
"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says.
You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.
You have yet to respond to the following point:
"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed
Looks like you did to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What, like the non-existant right to seceed?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Whatever gets you through the night, kid.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
If you can come up with a design (heck, even a description) for one that doesn't compromise the use of the gun, please tell me.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
Care to try and legislate that?
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.
Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked
Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence.
if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!
A) They're completely different technologies.
B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.
the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk
Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.
Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?
By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.
You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?
Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.
how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?
A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.
B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.
C) You have yet to respond to the following point:
"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."
Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's not what it says.
You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.
You have yet to respond to the following point:
"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."
No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].
Funny...
thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed
Looks like you did to me.
Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.
The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.
That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.
What, like the non-existant right to seceed?
I beg your fucking pardon?
As well you should.
I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.
Whatever gets you through the night, kid.
I want devices to prevent accidental shootings
If you can come up with a design for one, please tell me.
I want parents to educate their children about firearms
Care to try and legislate that?
you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.
Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic