Ban something becuase of others abuse!

Should we ban something becuase somebody abuses it or commits a crime with it?

Should we ban hi cap firearms becuase of the korean who used it in a crime or ban the korean for abusing his right to carry a gun?? Should we ban all sports cars becuase somebody can use it to kill others by illegal use or ban the driver for doing the misuse of the car?

Seems rather stupid to assume a goverment needs to tell us what we can or cant own due to others actions. Why sue a company for the fault of a lone person?

The recent events in Virgina creates a funny twist. The press blame the ease of the states laws to buy a firearm yet they failed to inform the general public that all handguns in the US bought thru a store have to be ran thru the FBI via a purchase form and a call in. Seems the state did not fail in this matter but rather the FBI. They approved the sale and they had far greater access to his records than the state did much less the store owner.

Why do you not hear people screaming Sue the FBI? Ban the federal goverment for failing to do thier job ect instead they blame the gun. I guess its far easier to blame an object that cant defend itself or even offer an argument back.

 

Things are banned and legislated because the legislation and restrictions many times create a market for others to become rich, or in order to protect the market share of those that are already wealthy. It is very rare that such laws are in imposed to protect the average working person's health or safety.

 

Governments have a duty to protect their people. if possession of something, say a thermonuclear war head, would cause their people to be less secure, there would be a reason to ban it's possession. whether or not the object itself is dangerous is a bagatelle.

 

Sure they have a duty, but do governments ever abide by this duty?

 

Most do (in some form or another), the ones that only care about the continuation of their own wealth (the g'vts) usually end up being overthrown once the ignored and impoverished people have had enough.
it's kinda like evolution.

 

Legislation is usually the result of protecting insurance companies and big business from liability not protecting the populus.

 

what insurance companies did the code of hammurabi protect?

 

I never proposed to speak on behalf of ancient Babylon, only for what is going on within my lifetime. I don't think the Bush administration or any other modern administration has operated within the confines of the code of hammurabi.

 

The government doesn't own "their" people. They have no right to tell people what they can do with their bodies or the physical objects they attain, as long as they do not infringe upon the self-ownership of others. It doesn't matter if you are trying to prevent "indecent" sex, drug abuse, or shootings. Victimless crime enforcement never works. People have the right to do as they please with themselves and their property, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Prohibition never works. Whether it is prohibition of sex, drugs, or weapons......the same principle applies. All it does is put it on the criminal red market where cartels and violence reigns.

 

Oh hell yes, I'm feelin' sarcastic as can be tonight. Let's ban EVERYTHING and all live in little padded boxes and never do anything unless we are told we can, because we're so DAMN stupid that we would all die if we had to think or act for ourselves. Our bosses could come around every so often and allow us out so we can do our jobs, but we would have to be constantly supervised by armed guards so that we would not do anything WRONG...

 

we should ban the internet, its just too easy to plagerize homework assignments now.

 

Because prohibition does not work in the long term does not mean it isn't profitable for a few during the short term.

 

It depends on the issue at hand for me.

Gun control? Yeah, I'm all for it.

We've always got the wackos who are gonna do whatever the fuck they want regardless of laws, so why should we make it easier for them to go out and shoot up a school?

People will ALWAYS abuse something. And almost always, somebody else will suffer as a result. A government should not sit idly by and watch its people suffer (Though the U.S. often does)...

 

So we should ban items that allow others to inflict harm on others well I agree but lets start at the top of the death list first.

Ban tabaco products 435,000 deaths in 2000
Ban poor health 400,000 deaths in 2000
Ban Booze 85,000 deaths in 2000
Microbial Agents 75,000 deaths in 2000
Toxic Agents 55,000 deaths in 2000
Motor Vehicles 43,000 deaths in 2000
Firearms 29,000 deaths in 2000 and 16,586 were suicides
sexual behavior 20,000 deaths in 2000
drug use 17,000 deaths in 2000

http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf

So yup need to ban them other 6 first then you can ban guns all to save others from harm.

 

First of all, as anyone who has paid attention for (at least) the last six years, since the current regime usurped it's power, would know that the government has exhibited little, if any concern for the well being of the citizen's of this country. Think back to the first few days of Katrina, when our govt. sat idly and W went on vacation...

Once they finally got around to going in there and doing something it mostly amounted to establishing martial law!

What happened there is an example of why they want "gun control." They want a docile society that cannot fight back! This is the very purpose our Founding Fathers had for laying down in Law the Right To Bear Arms! So we can defend ourselves from a DICTATORSHIP!!!

Some have suggested that perhaps Cho was a mind controled assassin, for the purpose of relieving U.S. Citizens of the Right to Bear Arms. Sort of a mini-911, if you will. They created 911 to relieve us of our Liberty, and now they want to take away our ability to stop their agenda from progressing further, by removing our ability to fight back!

For more on this, see my thread about the Blackwater Corporation. They are the ones who practiced the confiscations of weapons (read: Un-Constitutional!) on the victims of Katrina!

Anyone who is for "gun control" is either on the fascist's payroll, not paying attention, or just plain stupid. I sincerely hope that anyone here is of the second variety.

Peace, Love, Harmony

 

The one nice thing when they ban certian weapons is the prices go up!


I mean I can remember a Glock 17 round mag fetching $100.00 and now you can buy em for under $20.00. An SKS preban bringing almost $400 and now $200, a Colt AR15 preban $1600 not your lucky to get $1000. SO investment sake let em ban assualy weapons and high cap mags again, I will have a very good year!

I love my firearms but dont care so much about my automatic weapons, I have a love for the old single shots and bolt actions. I would hate to loose a few old colts and winchesters I have but they are over 100 years old now so I dont see them being on a list anytime soon as they are C&R not FFL.

 

I hate to be the one to break it to you but that comment is ridiculous. It contradicts itself several times. It is so ridiculous in so many different ways, I can't even respond to it. Waste of time. Simply read it and THINK about what it says. That's response enough.

 

I guess I get to be the big meany this morning. Yank, do you not know that it is probably quite foolish to go to such great lengths to brag about how many guns you own on a public forum. You have listed them in detail, bragged at length, and tried to impress everybody with your great knowledge and love of firearms. That, in my mind, is actually pretty STUPID if you think you ever might be in a scetchy position... Like Bush sitting down and making a list of all our weapons and sending it to the enemy. Let the enemy know just what they are up against so they can make the necessary adjustments. Let the government know so they can target you for "gun removal". Let potential thieves know so they can maybe figure out who you are and rob you... It's better, as a SERIOUS warrior, to keep your goods hidden.

 

earthmother / YankNBurn does this make any more sense.

This is how i interpreted Four Winds post:

While their is clearly a minority of individuals that pay no attention to gun laws and restrictions - gun control laws should still be discussed and worked upon. Nobody will stop crazy people doing crazy things - but a goverment should still work to provide adequate laws that will attempt to prevent others from abusing them [guns].

Nowwhere in Four Winds post did i see the word BAN. I saw the word CONTROL.

 

Absolutely - ''gun control laws should still be discussed and worked upon. Nobody will stop crazy people doing crazy things - but a goverment should still work to provide adequate laws that will attempt to prevent others from abusing them [guns].''