2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[CD]

Originally Posted by Car Enthusiast

CD, I found a stat to go along with your car and licensing arguement earlier that I couldn't find till now:

There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns and 207,754,000 automobiles). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council... despite cars having been registered and licensed
for almost 100 years.

Automobiles estimates, Federal Highway Administration, October 1998. Firearm estimates, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996. (I know they are a little old but I think the point is still the same)

Are you also more then 31 times more likely to drive then shoot a gun? I agree though, that are far more dangerous things out there as far as deaths go. Cars kill a lot of people but they are also FAR more prevalent to be used daily.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Some people define freedom as not having to pay taxes or any responsibilities whatsoever.

Unless you're comfortable with no police / military to protect you, you have to give up at least a LITTLE freedom. It's about how much freedom we're willing to give up in the name of safety and security.

If LA was bombed, you and I both know the government would institute a curfew of some sorts. We would be forced to stay in our homes. To me, that's infringing upon my rights as a citizen, but I understand that sometimes my rights have to bend a bit for the safety of myself and others.

If you refuse to admit that sometimes certain freedoms need to be regulated for the safety of the populace, then to me you are arguing in favor of anarchy (of course it's an exaggeration- but it's a slippery slope and anarchy is the end of the slope).

I think the government needs to step in and regulate certain things. Without regulation, any idiot could go out and buy nuclear weapons. Are you arguing for COMPLETE deregulation?

If you admit, on the other hand, that there are certain areas where regulation or government intervention is necessary, you can't tell me that one area is more valid than another- that's merely an opinion.

Other thoughts on regulation: would you argue that regulation of cigarettes and alcohol with regards to children should cease? Should we stop age requirements? Are we not infringing upon the rights of the children to smoke and drink? Who are we to arbitrarily set an age where the government feels a citizen should finally be afforded that right? Obviously I'm not suggesting you want children to smoke and drink, but I'd like to hear your feelings on that regulation compared to gun regulation. Bear in mind that alcohol is regulated on age of purchaser and strength of the liquor (among others). Although not defined with an amendment that we should have the right to drink alcohol, both alcohol and guns are regulated in a similar fashion.

Take note, everyone watching Juan and I go back and forth. This is how you respectfully argue two sides to a disagreement without being a giant douche.

Good points here, Ryan. No one is arguing for anarchy, we are trying to keep government away from a right guranteed to us because most of us here will agree whatever the government touches, it ruins.

I'd like it to be more like the regulation of alcohol. Need a permit to make it, distribute it, market it, etc. (let the onus be on the producer) and just make the consumer show ID and be on his or her merry way.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

I'd like it to be more like the regulation of alcohol. Need a permit to make it, distribute it, market it, etc. (let the onus be on the producer) and just make the consumer show ID and be on his or her merry way.

I think we'd be wise to learn lessons from prohibition and recognize that there is one agency that oversees Alcohol, Tobacco, AND Firearms for a reason. Perhaps aligning the regulatory controls over each would be in the country's best interest.

The big difference is that there are certain people that I don't think should be afforded the right to bear arms (felons, for example) while I don't give two shits about whether or not that same group smokes themselves to death.

[Juan.Camaney]

Dude, felons, as far as I'm concerned, are dealt with fine in regards to owning weapons. They gave up their freedoms the moment they chose to comit a felony.

It would be fine if ATF would be the only governing agency. My beef is with the overall rules varying from state to state. Too many people imposing their own personal beliefs over something guranteed to us.

The real "fear" is that the more states limit and impose restrictions, the more "normal" it becomes because of the obvious stigma with guns, and the more some people think the whole country should be pushed to these rules. There's an old saying, when California gets sick, the rest of the States start sneezing....or something like that, meaning that what we do, other states turn around and follow soon enough. Take a look at clean air regulations for proof.

[Ryan]

That's the same reason why a lot of the prop 8 funding (for AND against) was coming in from other states. They know that CA sets the precedent a lot of times.

It's like the US is conflicted as to whether the states should govern themselves or the federal government should have the control. Look at the feds raiding medical marijuana dispensaries as just another area where state law and federal law contradict each other and cause problems.

I've frequently wondered how our forefathers would react if they saw how laws were applied and interpreted now. Would they be pleased, or pissed off as hell?

I know a certain founding father (or two) who would probably shiat bricks if they saw a black president.