MarkDaSpark wrote: Dude ... would limiting your speech be okay?
It already is limited, I cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre or threaten the president or anyone else with bodily harm. For public safety. Not in broad or political contexts though
MarkDaSpark wrote: Limiting who you could associate with?
I don’t know of any safety or political contexts where this is limited… perhaps a restraining order counts. Once again, safety.
MarkDaSpark wrote: Extending your argument (that saving one life is worth ANY civil rights violation)
Not at all what I said. There needs to be a balance and it needs to be strongly justified and defined.
MarkDaSpark wrote: Drinking in large groups causes excessive drinking, which causes violent behavior and drunk driving. Ergo, the state has mandated that you can no longer drink in groups larger than 4. That would save lives as well.
But it would violate the Constitution. It would seem you approve of violating anyone's rights where you feel appropriate. What you fail to comprehend is that the founding fathers feared the mob (i.e., majority rule), which is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
Indeed banning such groups would be unconstitutional. Banning guns outright is as well. Banning the types of guns one can have or sell is a grey area that the courts are dealing with. Mandating certain safeties would also be a court issue. OFFERING such guns is not a constitutional issue. I am ok with such mandates going to the courts, are you? If not, why not?
MarkDaSpark wrote: Which is why they specifically put in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" into the 2nd Amendment.
infringe: to wrongly limit or restrict. The constitution does NOT say that it shall not be LIMITED.
MarkDaSpark wrote: You would impose on my rights, based on your "opinions". It would be as wrong as mandating that everyone own a gun. It's our right to own a gun or not own a gun.
I would not impose upon your rights, I have no power to do so other than electing persons, voting for a ballot measure or running for office myself. I also do not believe that there is a constitutional provision (outside freedom of religion) preventing a universal gun mandate. I think such a thing would be colossally stupid, but I think it would be constitutional.
MarkDaSpark wrote: Just because you think it would save lives, doesn't mean it will. Mainly because you are assuming that it will be a high rate of accuracy, when it's obvious it will never be that high.
Mark – I have learned in these kind of discussions, one has to break them down in parts to figure out where the differences truly lay or else people will wheedle out of the discussion on technicalities. This is why I proposed a very high accuracy (but not perfect) as a basis for the discussion.
MarkDaSpark wrote: And you are assuming that the gun is totally to blame…
This is flat wrong, I never made any such assumption.
MarkDaSpark wrote: …when it's the behavior of perpetrator. The suicide rate won't go down because of a "smart" gun, because they will just do it another way.
Not every person thinking or even attempting suicide truly wants to go through with it. Some, or many, yes, but if the EASE of doing it with a gun is gone, SOME may be saved. Admittedly it is a supposition, but do you think it is totally untrue?
MarkDaSpark wrote: The accident rate might go down, but it's not a one to one relationship. People will find ways to disable the "smart" feature, because it is unreliable and unwieldy. It's the behavior that counts, and training is the answer. Which you have totally sidestepped as well.
Of course it isn’t 1:1, but a reduction of 1% of gun accidents, gun suicides, and gun deaths as a whole is still a lot of people.
MarkDaSpark wrote: Or don't you feel education is the answer?
Of course education is PART of an answer. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid, or forgetful, or rageful people out there that no amount of education is going to make go away. How do we stop those people from revoking the right to life of those around them? There isn’t one answer for everything, but we can find ways to reduce tragedies.
2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14
2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.