would you support an amdt. to constitution that bans the sale & ownership of (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 03:39:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  would you support an amdt. to constitution that bans the sale & ownership of (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: handguns?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: would you support an amdt. to constitution that bans the sale & ownership of  (Read 4385 times)
Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

« on: December 11, 2013, 10:29:02 PM »

That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.
Logged
Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2013, 11:13:48 PM »

LOL @ the outrage, and ROLF @ the left-wing outrage. Oh no, banning guns, so terrible. Roll Eyes

It's a cultural thing. I don't really understand it either.

I'm from rural America and don't understand it. It's fun to shoot a gun but if you're concerned about constructing responsible public policy, it's quite clear that gun ownership is a terrible vice and a not a virtue. It's amazing to me that a few pulls of the trigger is sufficient to cloud people's judgement on this issue...

I understand liberals being aghast at this proposal but leftists? What is wrong with you people, we're supposed to believe that the idea of "negative liberties" grounded in 18th century classical liberal thought are nonsense...

I'm not sure what positive liberty you think is entailed in a blanket handgun ban. The Constitution has never been a document that has taken rights away from people in the long-term. It has always been used as a facilitator to expand them. Having an amendment that explicitly says "You can't do/have X" seems like a very HP move.

My personal view on guns and gun ownerships has always been that if I ever reached a point where I, like so many NRA supporters, felt I not only needed access to the biggest guns I could get but needed to carry them around with me everywhere, I'd be less concerned about my right to do that and more concerned about what has happened to a society that makes me or anyone else feel like they need to carry a deadly weapon with them everywhere.

While it's not an explicit Constitutional right, I and most people believe they have a reasonable right to a little thing called public safety. Gun nuts rant incessantly about how they have a right to defend themselves. I don't think I should have to protect or defend myself when I'm doing something as innocuous as going to school or shopping at the mall. In those situations, I am indisputably in the public sphere where public safety is the responsibility of the state. If there is a public safety deficit, the solution is more public safety - more police and other "good" people with guns. These are not situations that are analogous to having a murder or a burglar break into your private home, where your own authority trumps that of the public. It's part of the reason I vigorously oppose concealed carry and open carry laws.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.