|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2016 : 11:24:52
|
Not that it will happen, but I like the idea.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/stderr/2016/07/09/from-my-cold-dead-hands/
1. All sales and transfers of guns cease. It is illegal to buy/sell a gun.
2. All sales and transfers of ammunition cease. It is illegal to buy/sell ammunition.
3. Current gun owners keep their current guns.
4. When a gun owner passes on, the family has two weeks to turn any guns in for destruction, or may call the state police to come collect them.
5. The state police or collection center issues a reciept for the fair value of the guns (from back when there was a gun market).
6. The fair value of the guns is deductible from any inheritance taxes, or income taxes due by the heirs, distributed over a period of 10 years.
7. Anyone wishing to turn in their guns prior to dying is welcome to do so, and may get the staged tax deduction from their own taxes.
8. Anyone below the poverty line, who would not owe taxes anyway, gets a check from the treasury, distributed over a period of 10 years.
9. All guns collected are serialized and audited, bore-printed, then are chopped up and dispersed to recyclers.
10. There would be some provision for donating historically significant or collectible firearms to museums and curated collections prior to the owners’ death, or within the two week period after the owner’s death.
11. Over time the gun owning population dies out and the country is disarmed.
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2016 : 12:13:03 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe in a total ban on guns.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2016 : 21:01:09 [Permalink]
|
| So you don't agree with the US Constitution, which includes the bill of rights? I would prefer you focus your energies addressing the criminals that misuse guns and not on guns or Constitution and the bill of rights because of what criminals do with guns. The Constitution and bill of rights have effectively and positively served law abiding American citizens since their appearence in history. I wish you were a student of history sufficently to know the lessons that have been learned and severe consequences when citizens are prohibited from owning guns buy those in power but your apparently not. I will never agree with despots, dictators and tryanical rulers like you seem to be agreeing with, on the topic of citizens rights to own guns. On this topic and your desires we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers my SFN friend. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2016 : 23:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Always amusing to see people hiding behind the constitution as if it's scripture (spoiler, it isn't).
Originally posted by sailingsoul
So you don't agree with the US Constitution, which includes the bill of rights? I would prefer you focus your energies addressing the criminals that misuse guns and not on guns or Constitution and the bill of rights because of what criminals do with guns. |
This is obfuscating, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is almost as hackneyed as "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys." Guns make criminals more effective and more dangerous.
| The Constitution and bill of rights have effectively and positively served law abiding American citizens since their appearence [sic] in history. |
Does this mean they are infallible in their entirety and as true today as the day they were written... Hmm that rings a bell...
| I wish you were a student of history sufficently [sic] to know the lessons that have been learned and severe consequences when citizens are prohibited from owning guns buy those in power but your apparently not. |
Kudos for unbelievably patronizing tone! Can you provide some examples of severe consequences that have arisen when citizens have been prohibited from owning guns? Are you saying the major threat is from your own government? Do you not trust American society to function without an ever present threat of lethal force from any individual?
| I will never agree with despots, dictators and tryanical [sic] rulers like you seem to be agreeing with, |
Wow, Thorgolucky = Hitler, this is brilliant. Are you saying the governments of countries with gun control are all tyrannical btw? e.g. UK, Australia, Japan etc?
on the topic of citizens rights to own guns. On this topic and your desires we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers my SFN friend.
|
Agreeing to disagree is when you make your point then conclude with some civility, not accuse people of being ignorant and as bad as tyrants, the do some passive aggressive mic drop.
Completely hilarious thread, can't wait to see it unfurl (like a flag or a fern). |
 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2016 : 09:06:11 [Permalink]
|
| The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
There is a condition in the second amendment that doesn't apply anymore. When it was written, there was no standing army. Now there is a standing army. Well regulated militias include the armed forces, which very importantly also includes the national guard. So with that taken care of, why should we hang on to the right to keep and bear arms part when the justification for it has been removed? Or does anyone really believe that the second amendment was written to make sure that a few yahoos could take up arms against the United States? It's a willful misread of the second amendment to suggest that the right can be divorced from the original justification for the right to bear arms. The second amendment is out of date. Things have changed.
But let's ignore that for now. Let's say the second amendment means what the NRA says it means because that's mostly the way it's taken. How, in that case, would it be infringing on a person's right to own a gun to also have them take classes in gun safety and pass an exam as any driver must do? How would it be an infringement of the second amendment to make sure every gun is registered yearly, just like our cars are, and all sales monitored, again, just like cars are? And who says every car is street legal? Why should every gun be? None of those things infringe on a person's right to own a gun, and yet every one of those things is treated by the NRA as an attack on the second amendment. That's just nonsense. Even the first amendment has limitations.
But then, I think the idea that the second amendment even applies anymore is also nonsense. A person with a gun is not expected to join a well regulated militia with his or her gun to defend the country in case of attack. We now have a standing well regulated militia for that.
Were it up to me, I would allow gun ownership. But the controls would be very much stricter than they are today. Something like Australia's gun laws would work for me I suppose.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2016 : 10:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
So you don't agree with the US Constitution, which includes the bill of rights? I would prefer you focus your energies addressing the criminals that misuse guns and not on guns or Constitution and the bill of rights because of what criminals do with guns. The Constitution and bill of rights have effectively and positively served law abiding American citizens since their appearence in history. I wish you were a student of history sufficently to know the lessons that have been learned and severe consequences when citizens are prohibited from owning guns buy those in power but your apparently not. |
The irony is thick.
Also, go look at Australia, with strict ownership regulations and not a single mass homicide in what, 20 years? And suicide rates plummeted after gun control measures went into effect.
We've got plenty of actual data, so there's no need to propagate myths about the results of gun prohibition.| I will never agree with despots, dictators and tryanical rulers like you seem to be agreeing with, on the topic of citizens rights to own guns. |
So there can be no reasonable disagreement on whether you should have a right to own a firearm? It is only despots, dictators and tyrants who could possibly disagree?
Of course, if you're one of the many people who think you need a gun "for defense," then you're just saying that you're willing to be judge, jury and executioner in any matter relating to your person, rather than allow an attacker his/her own due process rights under the Constitution. Sounds a little tyrannical to me. You can hardly be a champion of freedom and the Constitution if you think that the death penalty is appropriate for someone who merely tried to rob you without intending to do you physical harm.
And if you think firearm ownership will do you any good against a U.S. military with orders to quell your revolution, then you're just fooling yourself. The U.S. government already prohibits technological equity between its citizens and its military, by ensuring that you cannot legally own a fully operational A-10 Warthog, for example. As such, against the current U.S. military, your little pop-gun ain't gonna do squat. (Note that the Colonists' advantage over the British was strategic and tactical, not technological. Plus: the French.)
It is also, perhaps, important to note that the Constitution is not immutable. We've had plenty of additions since 1776, and one deletion. Legally, the Second Amendment is no more sacrosanct than Prohibition. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2016 : 18:13:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The idea was to make sure the country could be defended when there was no standing army. |
The authors of the Constitution actually did not want a standing, mercenary army controlled by the Federal government to be the primary defense of the country. They thought such a beast would to easily be used by tyrant presidents against the citizens. They envisioned something like the National Guard, with firearm owners being professionally trained. The Second Amendment probably should have been repealed sometime before the Civil War (the Union army, by the way, was 97% state militia soldiers).| Let's say the second amendment means what the NRA says it means. |
Oh, wait, I see what sailingsoul did now:Originally posted by sailingsoul
So you don't agree with the US Constitution...? |
Sneaky. You see, Thor isn't about to have a disagreement with sailingsoul about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted and whether the courts and/or various legislatures have taken things too far (or not far enough). No! Silly me. Thor was getting into an argument with the U.S. fucking Constitution itself.
OffC was right. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2016 : 18:45:40 [Permalink]
|
By the way, I also oppose a total ban on firearms. I know too many people who need to deal with wildlife quickly but from a distance.
I favor a 100% registration system wherein a prospective owner must justify their need for a firearm in order to obtain a license for that specific firearm (one license per gun, necessarily obtained prior to purchase). Predators destroying your livestock? Here's a license. Live too far from town to buy meat on a regular basis? Here's your license. Live in a "bad" neighborhood? Sorry, no license, since it'd likely just add another stolen gun to an already ugly situation.
I do favor a total ban on handguns, since they're designed solely to kill other humans. Actually, not even a total ban there. Let's say that any firearm designed for killing other human beings and/or disabling military equipment should be reserved for the military, like handguns, M61 Vulcans, tanks, Apache helicopters and nukes (an obviously incomplete list).
Eugene Stoner (inventor of the AR-15) might agree:The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2016 : 19:37:04 [Permalink]
|
| I edited my reply, I suppose while you were writing yours, Dave. It's not substantially different. It just reads better and more accurately describes how I feel about the second amendment. I'm just mentioning it because one of your quotes of mine is gone from my post. Oh well... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2016 : 02:10:33 [Permalink]
|
sailingsoul: "So you don't agree with the US Constitution, which includes the bill of rights?"
I do not agree with the 2nd amendmend. It's outmoded and me thinks it should be repealed.
Christ on Fire: hear hear! I was recently arguing with a fellow atheist about the 2nd amendment, and he sounded downright religious about it, like it was some divine inalienable right. But it's simply law that can be changed, by design!
Kil: eeyup.
Dave W: semi-eeyup.
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2016 : 10:13:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
sailingsoul: "So you don't agree with the US Constitution, which includes the bill of rights?"
I do not agree with the 2nd amendmend. It's outmoded and me thinks it should be repealed.
|
Yeah, I wouldn't advise you or anyone of you guys to start holding your breaths while waiting for that to happen in your lifetime. Saying anything more than that is obviously a waste of time. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2016 : 20:14:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Yeah, I wouldn't advise you or anyone of you guys to start holding your breaths while waiting for that to happen in your lifetime. Saying anything more than that is obviously a waste of time. |
Wow.
You do realize, I hope, that the legal fact that the Second Amendment exists and is the law of the land doesn't imply, in any way, that there is a moral goodness to free and unrestricted firearm ownership.
In other words, just because something is, doesn't mean that it should be.
Do you also concur with the Republicans that we (as a country) should spend zero dollars on scientifically investigating firearms as a public health issue?
We have empirical facts that suggest we should spend that money. Like the fact that since 9/11, more people in the U.S. have been killed by toddlers with guns than have been killed by terrorists. Having a right to own a firearm doesn't automatically make people responsible gun owners. Perhaps we should rescind the right to own firearms just to help ensure that irresponsible people don't get their hands on killing machines. Gotta take a test to drive a car, why not mandate a test to help ensure that fewer two-year-olds shoot their own mothers in the face?
These are the kinds of issues that need discussion. The only people who won't even bother to entertain these questions (as "obviously a waste of time," for example) are extremists on both sides.
Perhaps we can start over, simply: why, sailingsoul, do you want to be able to own a firearm? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2016 : 20:24:34 [Permalink]
|
I am against a total ban on weaponry, but I am for registration, background checks, training, and all the things necessary to ensure that they are owned and used only by competent people for legitimate purposes.
If a person thinks, as many seem to do, that they need to be armed wherever they go in order to be able to defend themselves, there is something seriously wrong with them, and/or the society they live in. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2016 : 22:01:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
If a person thinks, as many seem to do, that they need to be armed wherever they go in order to be able to defend themselves, there is something seriously wrong with them, and/or the society they live in. |
Several years ago, Halfmooner posted this infographic which, if correct, suggests the odds of someone successfully using a firearm to defend themselves top out at 1 in 1.1 million (and are probably lower than that, since "justifiable homicide" doesn't imply a gun was used). Your odds of being hit by lightning in any given year are around 1 in 960,000. So if the folks who walk around packing heat for protection are serious, then they ought to carry personal lightning arresters, also.
If these numbers and these numbers are correct, the odds of a gun-owning person being attacked with a deadly weapon and not defending themselves are pretty high. Out of 309 million people in 2010, 126.7 million owned guns. Out of them, 485 thousand of them were attacked with deadly weapons. But there were only 278 justifiable homicides in 2010, so for every one of them, 1,745 other gun owners did not manage to kill their attackers. So your odds of being attacked with a deadly weapon and failing to defend yourself properly are 99.95%, or about 1,999 chances out of 2,000 (note that being attacked with a deadly weapon doesn't imply that you'll be murdered, or any other result).
I hear one objection already: perhaps a lot of the people who were attacked pulled a gun and scared their attackers away. Well, in many states, using a firearm as a deterrent is illegal, turning "law-abiding gun owners" into criminals. The choice, by law, seems to be "shoot to kill" or "don't draw at all." (I'm not comfortable with those laws, either, but at least they're not constitutionally mandated.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2016 : 19:42:43 [Permalink]
|
Hey, here's an idea: have a lottery for gun ownership. The lottery winners get a chance to shoot a death-row inmate who has exhausted all their appeals. The inmate gets a knife - a good one, a combat blade - and a couple of days to practice on dummies. The lottery winner gets the firearm of their choice, and a couple of days of professional training with live ammo. Arena deathmatch. If the lottery winner happens to be the victor, they get the grand prize of a license to carry the firearm they chose for self-defense. If the death-row inmate kills the lottery winner, they get $1000 and a bus ticket, so long as they give up the knife.
If implemented, I think the lottery winners would be waaaay over-confident in their skills, even with the training. Right after implementation, I predict we'd see a large uptick in the number of condemned people set free, followed by a drastic decline in the number of people seeking licenses to carry firearms (especially if we televised the deathmatches). When things settled into a long-term pattern, I think the vast majority of the people winning licenses would be those with prior military/police firearms training. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
A Slow Gun Ban
