6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control - Page 6

Asher · August 31, 2002, 00:24

Do it for Apu, David.

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

I already said I'm not going off into a minefield that you guys will use to bait-and-switch away from the main point of gun control. I'm not stupid, come on

You made the statement:

Quote:

Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property

Does this right to own whatever property you want extend to include radioisotopes, or is there some invisible line they're on the far side of?

Please stop avoiding the question. Do you know what "bait-and-switch" actually means or are you just using it for the hell of it? I don't see how it possibly applies here.

Asher · August 31, 2002, 00:31

I would encourage Floyd to play with radioisotopes, actually.

David Floyd · August 31, 2002, 00:34

Fine.

I don't see any moral mechanism that a government can use to restrict private ownership of a nuclear weapon. Doesn't mean I'm particularly thrilled with the idea of people toting nukes, but I can't see any way for the government to morally stop it.

However, I also don't believe that very many people would be able to own nukes. And in any case, if someone wants to use a nuke to kill a lot of people, that's hardly different from today. Contaminate a city's water supply, use chemical weapons in a city, etc., and you can still commit mass murder. The vast majority of people who would have the capability to build or buy a nuke would be very wealthy, and not only have no need for one, but no wish to use one - the use of a nuke on US soil would crash the stock market, and no sane rich person would do that. An insane one might, but if someone is rich enough to potentially buy a nuke, they're rich enough today to find another way to kill a million people.

Happy?

Now, if you turn this discussion into ridiculing me about nuclear weapons, I'll just leave. That isn't what this thread is about. And at least I'm consistent, unlike most people.

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 00:37

The reason for this was to force those who use your justification to examine the consequences of this thought process. I know you're consistent (for the most part). I also know that the great majority of people will disagree with your statement. I'm trying to get them to be more consistent. Capiche?

In other words, if their best justification for widespread private gun ownership is that the government can't meddle with private property, then they'll have to make a decision on what they like more: being able to own a gun, or being able to go to sleep at night with the knowledge that your neighbour isn't in his basement building a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb.

David Floyd · August 31, 2002, 00:42

OK, gotcha.

Propaganda · August 31, 2002, 03:11

Actually, this would not happen if money was invested in creating jobs, instead of spending it all on military.

David Floyd · August 31, 2002, 14:07

Eh?

DinoDoc · August 31, 2002, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Doesn't mean I'm particularly thrilled with the idea of people toting nukes, but I can't see any way for the government to morally stop it.

If you were somehow able to make a nuke appear in your home without using public property, Congress has the power of eminent domain and has the authority to appropate the weapon at market value.

David Floyd · August 31, 2002, 14:58

I don't support the power of eminent domain, and in a world where private property is untouchable, eminent domain goes out the window.

Panag · August 31, 2002, 19:34

hi ,

guns dont kill people , its the people that use guns that kill other people , ....

have a nice day

Dr Strangelove · August 31, 2002, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you were somehow able to make a nuke appear in your home without using public property, Congress has the power of eminent domain and has the authority to appropate the weapon at market value.

They don't need eminent domain. There are several nuclear regulations which would allow the Feds to seize the weapon and the owner without so much as a penny of compensation. Furthermore they would probably go in guns blazing without the slightest fear of public remorse for the deaths of the owners of the weapons.

Dr Strangelove · August 31, 2002, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't support the power of eminent domain, and in a world where private property is untouchable, eminent domain goes out the window.

Which world is that Dave? Eminent domain is a long and well established fact in this one.

DinoDoc · August 31, 2002, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
They don't need eminent domain.

I know that. I was merely stating a libertarian solution to the problem of people owning nukes for David.

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 20:34

Not enough of one...

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 20:39

How would you determine the market value of a nuclear weapon?

Asher · August 31, 2002, 20:49

Why would you need to determine the market value? Put it on eBay and see what the market values it at.

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 21:06

I bid 10.00$!!

David Floyd · August 31, 2002, 21:36

Quote:

I know that. I was merely stating a libertarian solution to the problem of people owning nukes for David.

Eminent domain is not by any means a libertarian solution. No libertarian I'm aware of supports the concept of the government being able to seize your property without your consent.

DinoDoc · August 31, 2002, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Eminent domain is not by any means a libertarian solution.

It is if you are as big of strict constitutionalist as you say you are.

David Floyd · September 1, 2002, 04:56

Quote:

It is if you are as big of strict constitutionalist as you say you are.

I support a Constitutional amendment to eliminate eminent domain, as I feel it is morally wrong.

Dr Strangelove · September 1, 2002, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

I support a Constitutional amendment to eliminate eminent domain, as I feel it is morally wrong.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

DinoDoc · September 1, 2002, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
I support a Constitutional amendment to eliminate eminent domain, as I feel it is morally wrong.

Are there any other parts of the Bill of Rights that you'd like to remove?

Sava · September 1, 2002, 11:31

at David...

That's the whole concept behind emminent domain. A situation or issue more important that your selfish need for your property arises where the government needs to take control of your property. I don't understand how any rational person can be against such a concept.

Scenario 1... there is a massive outbreak of some disease and the cure lies in a mineral buried on your property, millions of lives are at stake, but David stands on a porch with a rifle yelling "You won't take my property you dirty feds!"

Scenario 2... (a more realistic one) O'hare International Airport in Chicago needs to expand. Billions of dollars for the economy of Chicago are at stake, money which could affect the jobs and lives of millions. Yet about 10-20 homeowners (living in 1 story $100,000 shacks), claim that the government has no right to buy their land (the city of Chicago offered way above market value BTW) because of their own selfish interest.

I'm not surprised at David's position. He is at least consistent in his selfishness.

Doc Strangelove: I'm still confused about your position on tobacco. Do you want it to be illegal like illegal drugs? Or simply banned from use in public places? Please specify.

Dr Strangelove · September 1, 2002, 12:07

Both will do.

Sava · September 1, 2002, 12:50

AHHHHHHHHHHHH

Which would you think would be better for America as a whole?

IMO, if you make cigarettes illegal, you create the same prohibition/black market that existed in the 20's with alcohol, which exists today with marijuana and other drugs.

I think certain private establishments should be allowed to have smoking areas. But for all intents and purposes, public smoking should be banned.

David Floyd · September 1, 2002, 12:54

Quote:

IMO, if you make cigarettes illegal, you create the same prohibition/black market that existed in the 20's with alcohol, which exists today with marijuana and other drugs.

So why don't you think that it would be the same way with guns, hmm?

DD,

Eminent domain is not part of the Bill of Rights, but even if it were, I feel that it was a mistake.

DinoDoc · September 1, 2002, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Eminent domain is not part of the Bill of Rights,

Read the Fifth amendment.

David Floyd · September 1, 2002, 13:05

Good point....stupid hangover, can't even think. That's what you get for drinking until 4:30 am

I would amend the Fifth Amendment to take out the "without just compensation" part, and just let it read that "private property may not be taken for the public use".

Sava · September 1, 2002, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

So why don't you think that it would be the same way with guns, hmm?

DD,

Eminent domain is not part of the Bill of Rights, but even if it were, I feel that it was a mistake.

How many times are you going to make this mistake. I'll write it big this time for you and I'll use small words.I DON'T WANT TO BAN GUNS

Was that clear enough for you?

I want to make them harder to get for criminals by making people prove their responsibility through licensing and background checks!

Hopefully, this will help solve your lack of understanding.