Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The idea is NOT sound that we should look at the more minor set of dangers while relatively ignoring the most dangerous.
It is a good thing that you are the only one presenting that flawed position them.
The so-called gun control listed today is not reasonable or sound, even to many anti-gunners.
Odd that a large majority show support for many of the aspects in the polls. Perhaps you have actual references that say otherwise?
It is reality that as far as human on human caused preventable deaths, medical malpractice is orders of magnitude worse, but we must have health care.
A red herring at best, since only you seem to believe there is a connection between malpractice and gun control legislations.
Knives kill many more than so-called assault rifles, yet we need them to eat, just as we need guns for protection, hunting, and recreation.
Again, you are the only one indicating the total removal and then attacking that position. This is commonly called a Strawman fallacy.
Vehicles driven by people kill more, but we need them for transportation a lot. Hammers kill more than so-called assault rifles, too, yet we need them to build.
Continuing with the false logic does not make it any less flawed.
There is no Constitutional Right to keep and bear hammers, but there is for arms, including guns.
And there is the Constitutional requirement for the REGULATION as well.
Except automatics and cannons, and explosive missiles.
No, the Constitution does not address any of these at all. The legislation to regulate these items has been added just like the proposed new regulatory legislation. If one set is legal they both are unless and until the courts rule otherwise.
There is no Constitutional Right to smoke cigarettes which kill hundreds of thousands per year including second hand smoke.
There is no Constitutional restriction either. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
There is the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
That is actually in the Declaration of Independence and not specified in the Constitution, but has been considered as the basis in any case.
which really does not include killing others if it makes you happy, but does include the right of self defense to live which others can not take away from you just because they don't like guns of some sort.
You still have the right to self defense, just not the choice of total weapons to use, such as cannons, automatic weapons, and weapons of mass construction. The leap from restrictions to taking away the right to self defense is not only flawed logic but hypocritical when taken with the accepted restrictions.
There are already thousands of laws about guns on the books, so even more aren't reasonably going to make a difference.
More flawed logic. The numbers of laws do not indicate the impact of new or modified laws.
The root causes of the increased violence are not addressed and we keep letting in over a million per year to increase our overpopulation.
So the rights some believe they have for freedom in reproduction are not protected by the Constitution now? More dichotomies as the discussion progresses, which seem to boli down to rights being selective depending on the personal beliefs of individuals rather than what the laws actually say.
So-called assault weapons banning will not change the root causes that are increasing with even more gross overpopulation. All weapons are assault weapons, or protection weapons, including our fists.
Now you resort to playing with semantics? The legal definition of the assualt weapons and a more common definition being interchanged in the discussion is less than honest.
Knee jerk reaction to surface problems will not get at the real roots. We are already too outgunned by the police and military, and the only thing keeping us from even a more tyrannical government is so many of us armed. Police can not act as fast as a citizen armed who is under attack from criminals, and the government is not enforcing the laws it has made let alone more laws. Many in government are guilty of felonies but not taken out of office and charged like they should be. Our country has been invaded by 30 million in the past 30 years and the military have not stopped it, nor treasonous politicians. Pollution and depletion have gone up, crimes against humanity no less terrible than a nut kid killing numerous innocent little kids.
Speaking of knee jerk reactions and redefinitions.
Does banning weapons matter when overpopulation will cause mass deaths in the billions followed many years later by extinction caused by the pollution those numbers of people put in the biosphere over time?
Then why worry about the ban? Using your logic there are more important things to worry about, yet you continue with this. Multiple standards it seems.
Knee jerk reactions and idiotic logic don't help the children of the future. So-called reasonable gun control does nothing.
So the hypocritical stances on rights somehow do make a difference? Or the less important concerns are to be addressed only when you think they should? The "idiotic logic" in the positions you have presented are acceptable why?