|
|
|
| Authored by: myNym on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 08:48 PM EST |
There are laws on the books making it illegal to mow people
down. Whether it is done with a full-auto firearm, or a
full-auto station wagon, is moot. The act itself is illegal
regardless of the tool.
Yes, Reductio Ad Absurdum is indeed a valid tactic of
debate. But some were considering his response a true
desire, and showing concern thereof. My response was to try
to quiet their fears, and point out that he was likely
simply using that tactic of debate.
I don't know how to quiet your fears. I've tried helping
you understand that you have been lied to by evil fear-
mongers. They are horrible, vile lies, intended to take
advantage of your fears.
It isn't true that a gun in the safe somehow makes it more
likely that you will get stabbed. It is a blatant evil
lie. But that's what Kellerman claims.
I'm only aware of one known case where a legally owned full-
auto firearm has been used in the commission of a crime, and
that was apparently by an ex-police officer. That's one
case since the passing of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Seems to be an amazing law, doesn't it? That it worked so
well at reducing full-auto crime?
And yet the streets are awash with full-auto, thanks to the
war on drugs. But not one of them seem to have come from
law-abiding citizens. Each one of them have been smuggled
in across the border.
It makes sense. For every ton of cocaine getting shipped
in, the security force will probably bring in a hundred
pounds or so of Uzis. Once the cocaine is sold, and the
money safely laundered, what to do with the Uzis? Well,
sell them on the black market, of course.
Yes, the school/mall/theater shootings are horrible acts
done by horrible people. But they are statistically rare.
For those of us citizens who are not involved in the illegal
drug trade, and not involved in violent gangs, the
likelihood of dying by a bullet is exceedingly rare.
And in the US it is the most rare in those locales where the
law-abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms upon
his person.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 11:17 PM EST |
PS: Scalia and the majority in Heller:
"From
Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," wrote Scalia. "For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second
Amendment or state analogues."
Nothing in the Heller ruling, he said, should
be read to cast doubt on "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
