Archive

Decriminalize Guns. All guns

  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Con_Alma;1369067 wrote:Not necessarily. The punishment isn't supposed to be a deterrent as much as punishment equal to the offense.
    Impossible. equality is relative or punishments would be black and white, cut and dry, and they're not. You're using it strictly as detterance.
  • Con_Alma
    FatHobbit;1369075 wrote:Plenty of celebs and politicians get off with a slap on the wrist.
    That slap on the wrist is punishment. It may not be what you or I would like to see from a severity perspective but it still is the punishment end of the process.
  • queencitybuckeye
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369062 wrote:If this were true there would be no repeat offenders
    No, that would be deterrence. Punishment does not exist solely for that purpose.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    sleeper;1369074 wrote:Hopefully punished. ;)
    So this law Obama is passing would be what you want then.
  • sleeper
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369076 wrote:Impossible. equality is relative or punishments would be black and white, cut and dry, and they're not. You're using it strictly as detterance.
    Why's it gotta be about race? Typical Democrat; get raped in a debate, bring up racism.
  • sleeper
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369080 wrote:So this law Obama is passing would be what you want then.
    I meant sexually. :thumbup:
  • Con_Alma
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369076 wrote:Impossible. equality is relative or punishments would be black and white, cut and dry, and they're not. You're using it strictly as detterance.
    ???

    Equality is indeed relative. Punishments are often available to those administering them in a range. I'm not ever one to suggest that laws are designed to deter. I believe laws are a reflection of the desired society and culture we are seeking to become. Sometimes that's even *unachievable but rather it's simply a constant effort towards the impossible.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1369069 wrote:Very well put.
    Thank you Con_Alma. You have made my day. :D
  • Belly35
    ptown_trojans_1;1368982 wrote:Man, why not go back to the 1920s, and let's make legal Tommy guns, and BARs.
    That way I can really keep those feds at bay.....

    Oh, and why stop at guns, let's also make grenades, RPGs legal too so I can shoot down those black helicopters that will be taking my guns away.
    I would love to have a M3, I got one in Nam from an ARV I used it for tunnels and back up on ambushes.




    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Necessary to the security of a free state … semi auto weapon are no match for today full auto military weapons .. so right there is a problem But I'm Ok with Semi Auto weapons but limited rounds NO

    The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. …. Politician that use Executive Order to infringe on the Constitutional Right of the People is wrong and every Congressmen and Senator at agrees with this Executive Order should be kick out of office including Obama.

    I’m not apposed to some of the suggestion but the method of Executive Order in this case is a scam.

    When the 2 nd Amendment was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. Which were the common weapons used at the time. Weapons easy carried, stored, transported and used in daily usage, for protection and well being. So with that being transferred to modern time weapons like AR15, Semi auto shot guns and Semi- auto pistols are relative.

    Grenade, C4 or LAW are not “bearing Arms” type weapons (can be carried and transported but is not the intent of “bear arms” … being referred to in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP].

    When did modern Politician Congress, Senator and Presidents and Community Organizer ass-hole think that they are smarter and wiser than our Forefathers?
    Look and read at those documents, Bill of Rights, Constitution and stand at awe of the greatness.

    Those of you who think that the Bill of Rights, Constitution is limited documentation in American, are so wrong and so skewed from the Ideology of America.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Con_Alma;1369086 wrote:???

    Equality is indeed relative. Punishments are often available to those administering them in a range. I'm not ever one to suggest that laws are designed to deter. I believe laws are a reflection of the desired society and culture we are seeking to become. Sometimes that's even achievable but rather it's simply a constant effort towards the impossible.
    That's ok. You've unfortunately believed wrong in this instance though.
  • Con_Alma
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369093 wrote:That's ok. You've unfortunately believed wrong in this instance though.
    The statement you quoted was a generalised position addressing your comment about punishments of equality being relative.

    I haven't addressed specific punishments in any examples provided in this thread.
  • jhay78
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369058 wrote:People are going to break any law no matter what it is. We should just get rid of laws since we shouldn't use them as a deterrance.
    No, we just shouldn't pass additional laws that infringe on people's basic rights as expressed in the 1st-10th Amendments in order to deter people from breaking numerous laws already in place and written in practically every legal code since the beginning of time.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    jhay78;1369176 wrote:No, we just shouldn't pass additional laws that fringe on people's basic rights as expressed in the 1st-10th Amendments in order to deter people from breaking numerous laws already in place and written in practically every legal code since the beginning of time.
    I should be able to get drunk and drive if I want to. It's my right!
  • sleeper
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369243 wrote:I should be able to get drunk and drive if I want to. It's my right!
    No it isn't. Sorry!
  • FatHobbit
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369243 wrote:I should be able to get drunk and drive if I want to. It's my right!
    Not only should you not be allowed to get drunk and drive, you shouldn't be allowed to drive over the speed limit. (If my $100 GPS knows the speed limit, certainly my car can.) Government motors can create new cars that know the speed limit and won't exceed it. Turn in all the cars you own tomorrow. Can you tell me why a person NEEDS a car that goes faster than the speed limit? There's no possible reason they really NEED it.

    Speeding is ILLEGAL and kills CHILDREN!
  • Devils Advocate
    Belly35;1369092 wrote:I would love to have a M3, I got one in Nam from an ARV I used it for tunnels and back up on ambushes.




    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Necessary to the security of a free state … semi auto weapon are no match for today full auto military weapons .. so right there is a problem But I'm Ok with Semi Auto weapons but limited rounds NO

    The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. …. Politician that use Executive Order to infringe on the Constitutional Right of the People is wrong and every Congressmen and Senator at agrees with this Executive Order should be kick out of office including Obama.

    I’m not apposed to some of the suggestion but the method of Executive Order in this case is a scam.

    When the 2 nd Amendment was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. Which were the common weapons used at the time. Weapons easy carried, stored, transported and used in daily usage, for protection and well being. So with that being transferred to modern time weapons like AR15, Semi auto shot guns and Semi- auto pistols are relative.

    Grenade, C4 or LAW are not “bearing Arms” type weapons (can be carried and transported but is not the intent of “bear arms” … being referred to in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP].

    When did modern Politician Congress, Senator and Presidents and Community Organizer ass-hole think that they are smarter and wiser than our Forefathers?
    Look and read at those documents, Bill of Rights, Constitution and stand at awe of the greatness.

    Those of you who think that the Bill of Rights, Constitution is limited documentation in American, are so wrong and so skewed from the Ideology of America.
    Your president said
    We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,”
    he also said
    While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons
    Surely. you are not going to disagree with your president, now are you belly?


    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-helped-pass-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban/
  • queencitybuckeye
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369243 wrote:I should be able to get drunk and drive if I want to. It's my right!
    Neither drinking nor driving are rights as they aren't in the constitution. Owning a gun is.
  • jhay78
    ptown_trojans_1;1368982 wrote:Man, why not go back to the 1920s, and let's make legal Tommy guns, and BARs.
    That way I can really keep those feds at bay.....

    Oh, and why stop at guns, let's also make grenades, RPGs legal too so I can shoot down those black helicopters that will be taking my guns away.
    Yes, because the NRA and conservatives and law-abiding gun owners are clamoring endlessly for those things . . . :rolleyes::rolleyes:
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369243 wrote:I should be able to get drunk and drive if I want to. It's my right!
    1. Merely owning a firearm does not endanger people's lives like driving drunk.
    2. Driving drunk isn't protected in the Bill of Rights.

    Other than that, your argument is great.
  • BoatShoes
    queencitybuckeye;1369381 wrote:Neither drinking nor driving are rights as they aren't in the constitution. Owning a gun is.
    You can still make restrictions on gun ownership when the people of the United States have a compelling interest for doing so as has been done with other rights in the constitution. For example, there are several types of speech that are not protected under the first amendment.

    No one cries bloody murder over the fact that speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected.
  • queencitybuckeye
    BoatShoes;1369421 wrote:You can still make restrictions on gun ownership when the people of the United States have a compelling interest for doing so as has been done with other rights in the constitution. For example, there are several types of speech that are not protected under the first amendment.
    No argument, was just refuting a claim of rights that flat don't exist.
  • BoatShoes
    queencitybuckeye;1369430 wrote:No argument, was just refuting a claim of rights that flat don't exist.
    touche'
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    queencitybuckeye;1369381 wrote:Neither drinking nor driving are rights as they aren't in the constitution. Owning a gun is.
    Right to remain silent, right of a jury of your peers, right of innocence until proven guilty are also rights that weren't written in the constitution, but people seem to enjoy them now.

    Drinking and driving wasn't always illegal. It was passed as a law to deter it.
  • LJ
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369459 wrote:Right to remain silent, right of a jury of your peers, right of innocence until proven guilty are also rights that weren't written in the constitution, but people seem to enjoy them now.
    .

    Yes they were, 5th and 6th amendments lol
  • pmoney25
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369459 wrote:Right to remain silent, right of a jury of your peers, right of innocence until proven guilty are also rights that weren't written in the constitution, but people seem to enjoy them now.

    Drinking and driving wasn't always illegal. It was passed as a law to deter it.


    I propose an amendment to ban you from this thread. I really can't believe my eyes.
  • pmoney25
    Luckily for Zwick the constitution protects free speech or does it?