Controlling firearms

[Don Coyote]

Correction, anybody with 100$ worth of equipment can track your movements, not to mention cut off your hand

Cuz it's more interesting that way.


But damn. That easy?

Let's try this again.

I saw that part too. I just like making fun of conspiracy 'the government is tracking my moments with a satellite' guys more than the crazy 'technology is the devil' guys.

[Kai]

I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.

Where do you even buy an atlatl?  I'd love to do that again.

http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&safe=off&q=atlatl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=eAxXTPntBcH38Aa_mfjOAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QrQQwAw

You asked. 

[Don Coyote]

Where do you even buy an atlatl?  I'd love to do that again.

http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&safe=off&q=atlatl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=eAxXTPntBcH38Aa_mfjOAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QrQQwAw

You asked. 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260116111026&rvr_id=119004218943&crlp=1_263602_263622&UA=%3F*F%3F&GUID=292071381290a026a3526082fffdef9f&itemid=260116111026&ff4=263602_263622


I love how something 7 feet long can be called a dart.

[Triple Zero]

So, it's sounding like most issues... There has to be a line between "everyone do what they want" and "everything not allowed is forbidden."

It sounds like everyone wants to draw the line in a different place.  The most optimistic seem to think that a massive influx of common sense would answer most of the questions that come up, so only minor restrictions need to be established. The most pessimistic seem to think that humans are both violent and stupid, and it would be better if no one had access to devices that make it really easy to kill something.


Most of us appear to fall somewhere in between. 

A massive influx of common sense would probably solve a LOT of issues, though.

Any ideas on how to spike the water supply with common sense?

[LMNO]

If common sense is also known as "PCP", then yes.

[Triple Zero]

the Polite Clown Posse?

[Adios]

the Polite Clown Posse?

Nah, Possibly Conscience Person.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I dunno, the Constitution seems pretty clear... Right to Bear Arms... not infringed...

Commentary on the topic by Madison and others strongly supports the idea that it was intended to make sure that citizens could take up arms against the government if/when necessary.

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle

The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle

The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.

Clearly nuclear arms are covered as well. Just because there are people who would cause nuclear winter doesn't mean our right to bear nuclear warheads should be infringed.

[Cain]

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle

The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.

I fail to see the problem here.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle

The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.

I fail to see the problem here.

Really? Are you advocating nihilism or some form of society that places no restrictions on weapons?

I think the "Abuse is not an argument against proper use" argument fails in this context. Clearly people should be allowed to have guns for sport and protecting themselves and their property, I think most people agree with that.

But somewhere along the line, the damage from a single incidence of abusing a larger scale weapon outweighs the benefits of everyone having that ability.

[the last yatto]

These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.

ITT I just peed a little

[Cain]

No, I mean of course its a long and elaborate joke.

Primate social structure always has alphas, who make the rules and reap the benefits, betas, who enforce the rules due to fear of the alphas and minor perks, and everyone else, who sucks it up until they go "crazy" and stab an alpha through the eye with a sharpened piece of bone or something.  Which I generally approve of, though there are circumstances where other actions may be more prudent.

Any attempt at fairness is generally a cover for a more pernicious form of control, in that you think the system is generally alright and so put up with its excesses through rationalization of its actions or stressing their exceptionally, when they are in fact at the heart of the entire social system.  I mean, come on, George Washington's first act as President was to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which, IIRC, had something to do with taxes and Hamilton's power grab for the new Treasury.  Americans are allowed to keep their weapons insofar as they're never going to use them in a large scale manner to overthrow the Federal Government.  I'm just surprised Ratatosk hasn't figured that out already.

[the last yatto]

For number 3 we already need a license

Yes but its a secondary offense meaning you have to be doing something else to get pulled over for it. A lot of states made driving while talking on a cel from that to a primary offense. Even then fine is reduced if you have your papers in order by your court date.

[the last yatto]

I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry.  I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion.  But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not. 

Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.