grishnav 
Member since Aug 26, 2008


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Red is O.C.D.*

Hmm.. I wonder
if this
site
supports basic HTML tags

for formatting
. If it does, I'll take a stab at formatting my previous comment for increased readability.

Posted by grishnav on 08/26/2008 at 1:09 AM

Re: “Red is O.C.D.*

"He is claiming that his right to defend his life is being somehow compromised by any and all gun restrictions." Either you've seen different videos that I have, or you've missed the point. "That is like a guy claiming that he isn't able to really enjoy driving his car because the government has passed speed limits." It's more like the guy claiming that he isn't really able to enjoy driving his car because the government limited him to a 1 gallon gas tank. And let me tell you, if I had to fill up twice daily, I'd be rather upset about it too. "Most of us recognize that speed limits make the roads safer for us all" But there is still a TON of debate about whether firearms restrictions make the world safer for us all. And currently, it appears they don't. Furthermore, driving has (for better or, IMHO, worse) not been included in the "right to travel," so the standard for setting things like speed limits, in theory, should be much lower than for setting things like firearms restrictions. "and we, for the most part, live by those restriction." And when we break them, it's a very mild form of a crime known as a "violation" -- less than a misdemeanor. Most types of firearms violations, like accidentally walking past a school, are felonies with hefty penalties. Imagine that -- a felony for a crime with NO victim. "Few people but the real wacko's would ever make the case that speed limits are an invasion of their God given rights." I don't really believe in God, so you wouldn't find me making that argument. From a sort of libertarian perspective, I'd rather allow people to drive at whatever speed they desired, but devise a system such that they could be held responsible, with a high degree of accuracy, should they cause any problems. "I happen to believe that no one really "needs" a rifle that will fire in fully automatic." Not the military? How would they deal with threats coming at them with fully auto rifles. How about the police? My local PD seems to like to take them on every drug bust. Not that I believe drug busts are legitimate in the first place, but... that's a whole 'nother debate. "I don't believe anyone "needs" an assault rifle or a sub machine gun." I don't believe anyone "needs" a car, especially in the city where public transit is of high quality. I don't believe anyone "needs" bars, or alcohol, or nicotine, for that matter. I don't believ anyone "needs" filet mignon. Man, if we lived exclusively by needs, and didn't indulge from time to time... Is that *really* the world you want to live in? Seriously, count me out. I'll be the drooling over steak while you digest your government-approved vitamin-protein mash. "Personally, I don't believe anyone needs a pistol either since they serve no purpose but to threaten and kill other humans." Shoot. I've put 4,000 rounds though my various pistols, and never managed to hit a human being. Lots of paper though. I must be doing something wrong. That, or they could, maybe, possibly, just by some stretch of the imagination, serve other purposes as well. Besides, if you've already tossed the 50 bucks you have on you to the -head with a knife who suddenly insists you have more, and he's going to get it one way or another, you just might find that, unpalatable as it may be, you do "need" to threaten someone with something that has the capability to immediately change their mind. And maybe even use it. "I don't know of a single person that uses a pistol for hunting even though I'm sure some do." How about self defense? Is this not a valid purpose in your mind? By the way, I do know of *one* person that hunts with a pistol. Out of a whole lot of hunters. "I don't know of any politician that wants to restrict weapons beyond these few items." But that's a little like saying, "I don't really know of any politicians that want to restrict automobiles beyond these few categories: cars, vans, and light trucks... so what's the problem?" Um, duh. "So what is Nuggent really arguing for here? The complete unrestricted rights to all firearms? I'm not for that, most people aren't for that and I doubt that you are for that. Is giving up the "rights" to a few weapons all that much to ask in light of the benefits such restriction offer- much like speed limits on roads? I don't think so, but that is just my opinion." Since I would even argue against many of today's speed limits, I doubt you and I will find a lot of common ground. I simply encourage you to try to relate to the pro-freedom folks by finding something you like doing, or something you use every day, and applying similar restrictions to firearms to it, and see how you would feel about it... and also, try to be fair about it. For example... Speed limits don't affect what type of cars we can buy, they affect how we are allowed to use them on public right of ways. You can still purchase a corvette if you want, but you can't legally exceed the speed limit. When it comes to firearms laws, the restrictions are more like saying you can't own a corvette because it might be used to exceed the speed limit. IE., you can't own a handgun or quote-unquote "assault" rifle because you might conceal it and use it to commit a crime. (And hey, it doesn't have any other uses it's good at anyway, right? I mean, handguns aren't good at shooting targets compared to rifles... just like corvettes aren't good at commuting or hauling compared to hybrids or big rigs... right?) A better analog to safety rules on our roads is safety-related firearms laws like: 1. You generally can't discharge a firearm within the city limits, except at an approved range or in self defense. This makes sense, given the population density of cities vs. rural areas. 2. You can't point a firearm at another person, except in self defense. This makes sense because pointing a firearm at someone is inherently dangerous. The old saying, "Nobody ever got accidentally shot with a loaded firearm" comes to mind. 3. You can't shoot people, even by accident, except in whatever scenarios the state says is Ok (usually self defense against an immediate, articulable threat capable of readily causing grave bodily harm or death). 4. Nothing else comes to mind (it's after midnight where I am), but there are more common-sense gun *useage* restrictions on the books, depending on where you are. Politicians tell us that limiting firearms to 10 round magazines will reduce crime... It's an equipment type limitation, intended (albeit misinforedly) to reduce crime... Would limiting cars to 1-gallon gas tanks reduce speeding? Would banning corvettes on the road end high speed chases? Wouldn't a 1-gallon tank seriously impair the legitimate usefulness of an automobile? Do you think you should have to have a special "collectors" license (which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, by the way) and pay boatloads of taxes (many, many times the value of the car) just to own a Corvette, Mustang, or a Porsche?

Posted by grishnav on 08/26/2008 at 1:08 AM

Re: “Red is O.C.D.*

"I don't believe anyone "needs" an assault rifle or a sub machine gun." The local police carry them regularly, dealing with dangerous warrant services. Would you also argue that they don't need them? (I would argue that most of the "dangerous" warrants are invalid in the first place, since most of them are based on drug charges, but that's another debate..."

Posted by grishnav on 08/26/2008 at 12:31 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation