MERGED: Assault Weapons - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-13-2004, 11:56 AM   #91
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:11 PM
nbc: no you aren't (at least not because of this )

So is it so much fun that it's worth more dead policemen? And more terrorstrikes?
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:12 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Our society would simply colapse if there was a "car Ban" for a few years. Economy would definetly colapse.
How about we ban cars that can travel faster than 25mph? Higher speeds mean more fatalities. We don't need to go faster.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 01:16 PM   #93
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Use it on a firing range. I've done it (a long time ago). It was fun. It would be like any other endorphine-inducing activity.


Am I a bad person?
No. Perhaps people that have taken steps to obtain a gun license can also use one at a firing range. I still don't believe that people should be able to buy one and keep it.

It's more like a safety issue to me. We have seat belt laws, speed limit laws, littering laws, hazardeous waste laws. We follow rules in this society to make it safe for all. It just seems like common sense to keep the assault weapons ban after some terrible crimes have happened in history to require the ban in the first place.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Quote:
Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.
There just isn't any good to come of this ban expiration..

The flip side question is - what bad came of the ban in the first place?
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 01:23 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne
The flip side question is - what bad came of the ban in the first place?
Let's take away your rights and see if you are worse off....

I think this would be an interesting question in a variety of situations.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 01:28 PM   #95
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:11 PM
yeah, situations like why the law would tell me that I can't use hard drugs or drive 160 kilometers per hour on the freeway
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 01:30 PM   #96
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 05:11 PM
It ban isn't taking the right to bear arms nbc. That's a separate issue all together. It's avoiding the dangers of having these types of weapons in circulation.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 01:51 PM   #97
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Let's take away your rights and see if you are worse off....

I think this would be an interesting question in a variety of situations.
There are limits to every freedom, even those that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Obviously freedom has its limits when balanced against public safety.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the Supreme Cout case Shenck v. U.S.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:13 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:11 PM
But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:17 PM   #99
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.
Ok, you've been frustrating me all day with your arguments as they didn't seem very valid. This is the first one that I am going to go off and think about - as it actually immediately made sense.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:20 PM   #100
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Supposedly the NRA is going to spend 25 mil to get Bush re-elected
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:21 PM   #101
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.
Is this a caveat that's specific to constitutional law? Otherwise, under this logic, wouldn't it be legal for one to buy and posess drugs as long as one didn't actually use them?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:22 PM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne
Ok, you've been frustrating me all day with your arguments as they didn't seem very valid. This is the first one that I am going to go off and think about - as it actually immediately made sense.
Sorry I didn't raise this earlier - but they are all interconnected.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:30 PM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Is this a caveat that's specific to constitutional law? Otherwise, under this logic, wouldn't it be legal for one to buy and posess drugs as long as one didn't actually use them?
Arguably, yes. But there would have to be evidence of a number of people wanting to buy drugs for display.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:38 PM   #104
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Arguably, yes. But there would have to be evidence of a number of people wanting to buy drugs for display.
So you're againt knives and box cutters being confiscated before flights, then? After all, they have many other purposes besides potentially being used as weapons during a flight.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 02:40 PM   #105
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But, as a constitutional scholar, you would realize that limits on rights must pass strict scrutiny - thus a limit should only apply to the public safety goal (no criminal use of assault weapons) instead of a general ban.
that is the point that can be argued yes
while it seems to me that they don't call it an assault weapon for nothing

my knowledge of law is basically limited to tax laws
but usually prevention does have a place in law
and since it's hard to point out what good it does to allow assault weapons except for that not allowing would take away a right (or priviledge as I would like to call it) I don't think it would be much of a stretch to aim for a general ban
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com