Thank you! You bring a reasoned and responsible point of view to this ridiculous argument. The 1994 ban showed that the ban did little in averting gun violence. Most murders are committed by handguns, yet the anti-gun contingent wants to ban assault weapons. If you think about it, a baseball bat, a hammer, a car, and handguns could all be considered assault weapons. It is only an attempt to demonize a class of weapons that millions of Americans own and use responsibly.
Good point, my friend.
D30 - ICRD
“I've come loaded with statistics, for I've noticed that a man can't prove anything without statistics” - Mark Twain
"That's the difference between governments and individuals. Governments don't care, individuals do.” - Mark Twain
What a hypocritical response!
This is all coming from the same person that advocates heavily for the arrest of marijuana users in Washington and Colorado for the same reasons he says people should not be subjected to gun bans.
DLangdon at least understands these issues are congruent and does mot hypocritically apply disparate logic to the same basic issue.
One item of congruence missed by DLangdon here is the vast similarities between the left's attempts to limit guns and the attempts by the right to ban women's reproductive care.
I don't think it quite works the same way DLangdon. If people go to the black market to get something it's not usually because they resent the fact that it's illegal but because they want to actually use it. People were getting drunk, it got made illegal, people continued drinking because they wanted to drink. People don't go to drug dealers just so they can throw it away. When people buy arms on the black market it's usually because they plan on using it at some point and don't want the gun to be traceable to them or because they can't get a gun with the current laws.
Now if assault weapons are banned will there be a surge in the black market trying to fill in that demand? Yeah I think there would be. I can see the irony already of conservatives buying weapons from drug lords, Muslim terrorists, and armed communist factions.
" I can see the irony already of conservatives buying weapons from drug lords, Muslim terrorists, and armed communist factions."
LOL!!! So funny!
I doubt conservatives will be buying anything from criminals or drug lords. You see, conservatives are smart enough to purchase their weapons before the ban is imposed. It is far more likely that conservatives will be taking out the terrorists, communists, and drug lords. Then we'll just take their weapons.
Now, how funny is that!
D31 - ICRD
“Communism is the opiate of the intellectuals with no cure except as a guillotine might be called a cure for dandruff.” - Clare Boothe Luce
“The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.” - Jeff Cooper
"It is far more likely that conservatives will be taking out the terrorists, communists, and drug lords."
There goes that delusional nonsense again. Kind of illustrates my prior point to-a-T!
"One item of congruence missed by DLangdon here is the vast similarities between the left's attempts to limit guns and the attempts by the right to ban women's reproductive care."
Not missed, just did not see it as a part of the point I was making.
Nice shot! That was a nice way to shut down someone who complains about others not staying on topic. Bravo!
D31 - ICRD
“Never ignore a gut feeling, but never believe that it's enough.” - Robert Heller
“Snow and adolescence are the only problems that disappear if you ignore them long enough.” - Earl Wilson
Yeah good one because I've never met a hypocrite pot-smoking conservative. Or a conservative fundraising for terrorist groups. Or conservatives doing anything illegal, conservatives don't break laws, that's a fact.
Hello Bull153, DLangdon wrote, "As long as there is a demand, someone will step up to supply it. So here is the question; do you want the criminal element controlling the gun market? Think about that while you are debating this or any other ban". Especially note the last sentence. This shows that crimeriddendump's reference to "attempts by the right to ban women's reproductive care" is EXACTLY on topic as it draws a comparison to the repercussions of banning a "right", whether it be the right to own guns or the right of women to control their own bodies and make their own choices regarding contraceptive devices and abortions. The consequences of banning abortion bear an eerie similarity to the examples outlined by DLangdon, since "back alley" abortions and those performed criminally (which, if abortions were outlawed, would be ALL abortions performed) would most likely follow. So we can all ask ourselves, "Do we want the 'criminal element' controlling the abortion market?" DLangdon may not have intended to go down this road, but it IS an apt comparison and NOT a divergence from the topic.
Also, for an excellent illustration of true sarcasm, please read Capitalists_Nightmare's last post where it is obvious that he really believes the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is writing. Well done, C_N! Sincerely, Karen
Hello DLangdon,I understand your point, but what about speeding laws or any other type of restrictive rules? Does the fact that on most highways we can't drive over 65 makes us all want to speed? Do we "resent" that we can't legally drive faster, or do we recognize the reasoning behind and the need for certain modifications in accepted behavior for the good of society as a whole? Banning ownership of ALL guns is quite different than banning only certain types of extreme weaponry which most citizens will NEVER have a legitimate use for anyway. To extend your alcohol example, while we no longer ban alcohol completely, we do restrict its usage to those over the age of 21 and also impose penalties for drunk driving or public drunkenness. While banning something COMPLETELY may indeed have unforeseen or unintended consequences, reasonable restrictions on certain types of behavior or even rights (like the prohibition of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no such danger present) do make sense. Sincerely, Karen
DLangdon is discussing banning assault weapons. He used the examples of prohibition and drugs to make his point about the gun ban debate... NOT abortion rights, speeding, or drunk driving.
Illegal drugs are banned. Alcohol was banned. His point about the success or failure of those bans are germane to the topic. Abortion is not banned. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of abortion rights, start your own blog.
Thank you for educating me on sarcasm, I can go to sleep tonight knowing that there are no conservative pot smokers like former Governor Sarah Palin, conservative terrorist fund raisers like retired Lt.Col. Oliver North, or conservatives who have never done anything illegal like presidential candidate Herman Cain, since we know for a fact that conservatives like former speaker Newt Gingrich, even though they are human, never break the law. Not like the liberals, who are all pot smoking, terrorist funding, criminal law breakers...
D31 - ICRD
“A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.” - Lawrence G. Lovasik
There is a need for migrant workers, and when the demand is high, these migrant workers fill the need regardless of the current immigration laws. Bringing undocumented workers into this country has a black market, and it is controlled by gangs and syndicates as well. As Dan stated, "As long as there is a demand, someone will step up to supply it" and this is true in business.
"Americans by their nature resent anyone telling them they can’t have anything."
So the same argument, as well as a current subject being discussed by this Congress. So does the same reasoning apply to the right to hire anyone willing to do the work, as it does for anyone to own any gun that they want?
Some may say this comparison is apples and oranges, but not really. This is a country based on personal liberty, and there is even a statue at the entrance of this country by represents that principle. So how can a country that believes that a Nation based on both Liberties and Open Markets, can not hire anyone they can get to do the type of work that the average American refuses to do for the wage being offered? The argument coming from the right on guns is "we're going to get what we want when we want, regardless of the laws that the citizens of this country implemented" and Corporate America's argument has been we will hire anyone who is willing to do this work, regardless of the laws of this country. So why is there a vocal group in this country that feels that these workers want to live here? Possibly its because the laws that we currently have make it too expensive to risk going home after each season, so they remain until there is no work, like we witnessed when the economy crashed and there was a mass exodus across the boarder back home.
I bet the Corporations will win and immigration laws will evolve to allow temporary Migrant Worker visas for low wage jobs. Just look to Alabama and Georgia for telltale signs of what may be coming. And I am leaning towards a watered down version of the last Assault Weapon Ban that used to be in effect.
Australian people have successfully enacted an assault weapons ban back in the mid 90s and it has an outstanding record of success in eliminating mass killings like we have been experiencing. It doesn't matter how independent Americans are, they still believe that laws and regulations keep us safer than living in the old west. A person can "ARM" themselves for protection and not have a gun on them. The Australian people share a lot with the American people, and a independent nature is one of them, so that line of reasoning only works for snake oil salesmen.
Something else that should be considered, and that is if every fearful wing nut should be allowed to carry anything they want to protect themselves, then there is a market for the vests that cops wear in order to protect ourselves from the wing nuts with unimpeded access to guns who think they are protecting themselves.
Just think though, if everyone could be protected by a bullet proof vest like the cops wear, this would render a cops superiority via gun, and it would basically neutralize the threat of guns in general. Head shots would still be a concern, but in the heat of the moment they are more accidental than deliberate.
Take this concept further, and instead of arming teachers or growing government by having to hire guards at schools across the land, just require bullet proof vests as a part of a uniform that the conservatives have been trying to dress the children in for years now. That way when a wing nut goes off on a school in the future, the kids have a better chance of surviving an attack than they do relying the janitor to be the hero.
Hello Bull153, I never said I wanted to "discuss the pros and cons of abortion rights", I am merely pointing out that crimeriddendump's bringing up the subject of women's reproductive care is not off topic in a blog that stated, "while you are debating this OR ANY OTHER BAN". You are absolutely correct that abortion is not banned YET, but there are numerous examples of representatives and states trying to limit women's choices, so using the possibility of banned abortions as an example for comparison, as crimeriddendump did, was a valid point. You don't have to agree with his perspective or point, but that does not make it any less valid. Simply because DLangdon did not use the particular examples that crimeriddendump or I used does not mean that a whole different blog has to be started. You sound unfortunately close to the sentiment "get off this blog and start your own", which is amazingly arrogant. Perhaps you were unaware of how this comes across? My points about speeding and drunk driving (which, by the way, I specifically addressed to DLangdon, but don't mind that you jumped into this part of the conversation) were to illustrate my belief that degree matters significantly in terms of banning. Completely banning something differs greatly from simply restricting some aspects of it. Assault weapons are not necessary for the average American citizen. This is my opinion, you are free to disagree. Lastly, for a person, such as yourself, who attempts to employ sarcasm so much on this forum and uses it as a defense for your postings ("I was just being sarcastic!"), your choice of ending quote seems strangely ironic. Sincerely, Karen
"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."-Eugene Debs, U.S. socialist leader being locked up for opposing WWI.
Being called a criminal is an honor.
"Completely banning something differs greatly from simply restricting some aspects of it." - Couldn't agree more.
The word Arms as it is addressed in the Constitution is a general term, and not a specific term, which leaves Congress the power to regulate "Arms" in order to properly define it. Guns can be defined an obsolete weapon for the general security and day to day protection of home and property, with a modern, and just as effective non-lethal weapon being its replacement. The general public will still have the right to bear arms, and possibly not have to register them since they are non-lethal.
The Government banned analog TV sets, and I am still able to watch free TV if I should so choose to do so. There is no rampant black market for the old TV sets that I am aware of.
No reason to freak out, you can climb down off of that chair now. There's nothing to be afraid of, its all in your head....
Government also banned leaded gasoline and lead paint. I don't see much of a market for these things either.
I was wondering if anyone else would pick up on the irony/hypocrisy of the quote you referenced.
It is interesting as I see the abortion and gun control issues to be almost exactly the same core issue; what rights do states have to limit availability of Constitutionally protected goods or services? It is an interesting debate. Also, I'm not sure if ownership of particular makes of guns has been argued as protected.
All interesting topic that most here seem to not want to discuss.
You take sarcasm to the extreme. Bullet proof school uniforms? You are about as knowledgeable as Hoffman is about such things.
There is no such thing as a bullet proof vest. They are ballistic vests and depending on the rating they will not stop some types of ammo. They are heavy and uncomfortable, and while much improved over the early models, it is ridiculous to dress kids up in them. The expense is outrageous, and they have to be replaced as the child grows. How about getting real...
Arm everyone with non-lethal weapons? That will do just fine when a group of thugs with real weapons tries to invade my home. You find all sorts of reasons to not update the Constitution because of modern technology, but now you want to replace firearms with electronic gadgets. Nice try. I'd like to see that get through Congress.
D32 - ICRD
“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” - Abraham Lincoln
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick Henry
"How about getting real..."
Seems this poster should take his own advice and finally acknowledge the REALITY that firearms in the home have been proven to be more likely to harm a family member than "a group of thugs with real weapons."
There is actual reality and then there is this wild-west-shootout-hollywood-fantasy that some keep living in.