fast_eddie_72 wrote:
rotard wrote:
The problem with these kinds of laws is that the type of person that is going into a movie theater to kill people isn't interested in any laws.
So, I get this argument. But think about it. Couldn't this be used as an argument to pretty much get rid of any law? It just kinda seems like a cop out to me. "Hey, people are gonna brake the law anyhow, so we might as well give up".
That's why people who think that that don't make it as a cop.
Its a logical argument that will only make sense to people who are actually willing to apply the time to think about it. Not calling those who don't agree dumb, but if you someone doesn't agree, I feel they are not understanding.
Conquest351 wrote:
Eh hem... This just in...
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx
A week or so ago?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/
Grizz wrote:
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
It's more, people who break this law aren't going to care, so why punish people who actually obey the law because some wont?
It's like saying "Because this guy was going 105 when he slammed into this bus full of children nobody can own a car that does over 55."
Penalizing people who didn't do anything wrong when someone else did is berkeleying horseE36 M3.
Also, there is no need to have a car with more than 100hp, you can get around fine with a car like that. It doesn't matter that you use it for recreation like road racing, drag racing, or autocross, cars kill so many people.
N Sperlo wrote:
Conquest351 wrote:
Eh hem... This just in...
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx
A week or so ago?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/
from the article said:
Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to “barge in, get the money and leave.” He said “he never expected anyone to be armed.”
That is the point. Criminals act like berkeleying cowards when someone on the other side has a weapon. I see nothing wrong with what happened here except the criminals got out of there.
slantvaliant wrote:
Joe Gearin wrote:
What if there was a "craziness" test that if you failed, prevented you from purchasing a gun?
What if there was a "literacy test" to make sure that you understood what you were about to vote on?
Oh, wait. We tried that. It was used to deny rights.
i would like to point out as an aside, we've also tried to do that multiple times with our own lawmakers, comitting them to having read the legislation in full before voting on it. Its never succeeded, and we get stuck with gems like this:
"...we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
perhaps the controversey would be minimalised if you read what the heck you're signing into law. Strange people have no sense of controversey getting law makers to try to agree to something like that, but because in the past a similar law was used for a time to 'deny rights', its now completely off limits for time infinity...
If we can't agree that there even should be a litmus of some kind, how do we expect a reasonable set of conditions for such things?
And if we did set such conditions, how would we intellectually defend them from any other 'rights' precondtiton being applied in other cases again?
