Ban on USA Assault weapons set to lapse

[Lurch]

I have my bias (it's left-leaning, btw).

Now that that's out of the way -- I think it is perfectly irrational to allow someone to own one of these weapons.

Now for the test as to your political quadrant. Do you think it is ok for the government to infringe on your personal rights and freedoms via the Patriot Act in order to protect citizens from terrorists? Ignore the specifics of the Act itself, as the point is whether you think the government should be allowed some latitude with civil rights and freedoms to protect you from terrorists, or do you think the loss of freedom is worse than anything the terrorists could do?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 04:04 PM

Now for the test as to your political quadrant. Do you think it is ok for the government to infringe on your personal rights and freedoms via the Patriot Act in order to protect citizens from terrorists? Ignore the specifics of the Act itself, as the point is whether you think the government should be allowed some latitude with civil rights and freedoms to protect you from terrorists, or do you think the loss of freedom is worse than anything the terrorists could do?

That's an impossible question to answer due to the "Ignore the specifics of the Act itself aspect of it. I can't ignore the specifics.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 10:04 PM

Now for the test as to your political quadrant. Do you think it is ok for the government to infringe on your personal rights and freedoms via the Patriot Act in order to protect citizens from terrorists? Ignore the specifics of the Act itself, as the point is whether you think the government should be allowed some latitude with civil rights and freedoms to protect you from terrorists, or do you think the loss of freedom is worse than anything the terrorists could do?

As I understand it, anything the Terrorists do is way worse because it is right there, in your face. As compared to the Patriot Act, where you will hardly ever notice "Big Brother" watching you until you put "plutonium" or "anthrax" in an email message, and CIA agents wearing funny hats and skinny ties kick your door down.

uh oh.......

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 09:08 PM
Hmm interesting, so as a state your dictating against what a person can collect, even a legitimate collector. Aren't you now impeding on several constitutional issues.

If assault weapons are banned, then the rights of the collector aren't being infringed upon.

Gotcha.

The whole gun business is a pretty tight balancing act of the good of the people vs the good of the U.S. Constitution. But the constitution was probably not written with an ak-47 with a laser scope in mind.


Correct me if I'm wrong - and I might be - but the USA constitution only gives testimony to the right of a citizen to "bear arms." That means I could collect howitzers if I wanted to. Obviously, someone might get a little jumpy if I did so.

There's nothing in the USA constitution that says anyone has the right to collect assault guns or even possess them.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Skirt the issue if you like, but to me either you support measures that protect individuals at the expense of personal freedoms or you do not. The right to possess assault weapons is a right many Americans apparently feel they deserve b/c if they don't have this right, they are on the slide down the slippery slope to not being allowed to have a gun at all. OTOH, the left is ok with banning assault weapons b/c it can rationalize that banning ridiculous weapons with no real purpose outside of war does not mean Uncle George will be thrown in jail someday cuz he refuses to turn over his old .22 that he shoots gophers with. However, they suddenly get skittish when you suggest maybe the government needs some latitude to catch terrorists who are already living in the US b/c it is now ineveitable that big brother will be bashing down there door in a matter of days.

Show me how either side is rational in this, and I'll eat my words, but to me it seems as though both sides are guilty of having an opinion embedded and not being capable of making a decision on the merits.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 10 2004, 10:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 10 2004, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Sep 10 2004, 09:08 PM
Hmm interesting, so as a state your dictating against what a person can collect, even a legitimate collector. Aren't you now impeding on several constitutional issues.

If assault weapons are banned, then the rights of the collector aren't being infringed upon.

Gotcha.

The whole gun business is a pretty tight balancing act of the good of the people vs the good of the U.S. Constitution. But the constitution was probably not written with an ak-47 with a laser scope in mind.


Correct me if I'm wrong - and I might be - but the USA constitution only gives testimony to the right of a citizen to "bear arms." That means I could collect howitzers if I wanted to. Obviously, someone might get a little jumpy if I did so.

There's nothing in the USA constitution that says anyone has the right to collect assault guns or even possess them.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I think you do have me on this, I think my argument went out the window

The Constitution guarantee's the right to bear arms

arms are not specifically defined as assault rifles, or grenades, or whatver

I'm guessing that the constitution can then be superceded by the sitting government who can define boundries within the constitution

So until its specifically banned I should be allowed to mine my front yard. Collect stinger missiles, and have a collection of baby nukes, if they're not specifically banned.

However if you go on the logic of that, then the Patriot act can't really be challenged by the consititution. If the consititution is a guidline and not a truly enforcible document

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 04:25 PM
Skirt the issue if you like, but to me either you support measures that protect individuals at the expense of personal freedoms or you do not. The right to possess assault weapons is a right many Americans apparently feel they deserve b/c if they don't have this right, they are on the slide down the slippery slope to not being allowed to have a gun at all. OTOH, the left is ok with banning assault weapons b/c it can rationalize that banning ridiculous weapons with no real purpose outside of war does not mean Uncle George will be thrown in jail someday cuz he refuses to turn over his old .22 that he shoots gophers with. However, they suddenly get skittish when you suggest maybe the government needs some latitude to catch terrorists who are already living in the US b/c it is now ineveitable that big brother will be bashing down there door in a matter of days.

Show me how either side is rational in this, and I'll eat my words, but to me it seems as though both sides are guilty of having an opinion embedded and not being capable of making a decision on the merits.

Skirting the issue?

Do I think the government should have the right, sans probable cause, to tap my phone and snoop around my library and bank records? No.

Do I think the government should have the right to stop me from owning a product designed solely to kill scores of other citizens? Yes.

Is it irrational to wish for a society that falls somewhere between anarchy and a police state?