Mental illness–That’s the first thing you hear from commentators. No data to back that up. Certainly there are some with mental illness, but for those diagnosed BEFORE a shooting it’s a small percentage. And you can’t really diagnose someone the police have just killed.
See above. Then grab the popcorn and body armor.
Won’t work. People make their own.Can anyone guess it?
Their ownership of guns doesn’t endanger lives or do you think most gun owners are murderers?
All of them, obviously.
Inalienable, inherent, human, inborn, natural. Rights that exist independent of any law that recognizes them. Laws /police /kings don’t create them or bestow them or grant them. And there is no right to deny others’ rights.Nihilo:
Ok, I need a little more clarification. Can you precisely define what, in you view (I am not looking for an argument on this point), classical liberalism’s definition of “fundamental right”.
So are you agreeing that there’s a right to bear arms, but not to Keep arms? So we possess the right to bear any arm, but not to keep any? If you do not believe we have a right to bear arms, then what principle or philosophy or belief justifies your using the bazooka in the thought experiment? Do you believe in a right to life, and a right to self defense, but not a right to bear arms?Nihilo:
No, I have not. I agreed with your statement, if one was within reach, one had the right to use it. That is not at all the same as ownership.
No it would make millions of NEW criminals. But if you are going to argue that keeping a the freedom to do something over saving a life. You can make a very long list of things to make illegal to save lives. Where is my popcorn?
That was what I was asking thanks for the clarification.
I acknowledge the right to self-defense. If a weapon is at hand which is proportionate to the need, then one can use it. That’s all I said.
Keeping the words of the Constitution.
Would it be possible to stay away from using insults? (Cowardly? Despicable?) It is rather impolite and unhelpful.
Not so simple. Producing a few thousand bullets is not the same as manufacturing millions. Heroin and meth are very simple products. Manufacturing ammo in huge quantities is a different matter. It cannot be accomplished in an empty barn. And transporting them would be impossible, due to the fact that ammo would be detected by the simplest metal detectors.
It would work just fine.
How long would it take to use them?
That realization was sped up by the price hikes.
The manufacturing and distribution processes are fundamentally different.
Is there no way to avoid insults?
I actually work in manufacturing…and know how design and development of products plays out. The technology for manufacturing ammunition is already out there; the design and development has long been done. There’s no mystery or secrecy about it…and yes, it could be done in medium/high production quantities in a barn (i.e., 4800 square feet).
What is that medium / production quantity? How many of them would suffice to fulfill the need of millions of users? Numbers, please! How long would it take to discover and destroy such “underground” production facilities? You seem to forget that metal detectors are cheap and simple.
That would require a huge manufacturing base.
If full production in the entire USA per year is 12 billion divided by the roughly 52 ammo manufacturers in the USA, you’re looking at approximately 230 million individual bullets/cartridges produced each year per manufacturer.Nikolaite:
What is that medium / production quantity? How many of them would suffice to fulfill the need of millions of users? Numbers, please! How long would it take to discover and destroy such “underground” production facilities? You seem to forget that metal detectors are cheap and simple.
That would require a huge manufacturing base.
The point is that no one can fulfill the need if the existing production facilities were to be put out of business. The aim of the game is to allow legitimate users have their needs fulfilled and prevent the non-legitimate ones to get access to their needs.
The war on drugs and the Prohibition were idiotic endeavors. To prevent the mass shootings and the proliferation of illegal guns is anything but idiotic.
I was talking about American citizens owning their own weapons. Not governments.
So you believe it’s illegal for any kind of restrictions on gun ownership? Be it those on the terror list/red flag laws, background checks, license, etc?
Just read this response.
OK. fwiw here are excerpts from the Supreme Court’s Caetano decision:
OK and we agree on that.Nihilo:
I acknowledge the right to self-defense. If a weapon is at hand which is proportionate to the need, then one can use it. That’s all I said.
It’s the same matter to me, we’re just going to look at it from a different angle.
That’s very good. It is at least a matter of preparation. And about what justifies lawmakers to make laws that authorize leos to penalize someone as they prepare. One thing to not do, is put administrative or bureaucratic roadblocks into the process of obtaining guns, that slows down or complicates it, because the delay can cost innocent lives.
Well we just disagree philosophically wrt this whole paragraph. If I believed the same philosophy that you believe, then I’d agree with the whole thing, but we disagree philosophically, so the whole thing is in dispute.
That’s why I said it has to be before a judge and or jury, not a medical doctor or PhD writing a letter. We have process for administrating justice and flexing police muscle, and it’s at the direction of the courts, who are interpreting the legislature’s laws.Nihilo:
Just read this response.
What about laws that prevent past offenders from getting a gun. Or people on the FBI watch list?
Given that there’s a likelihood of gun violence on their part, what would you think about laws that prevent unstable people from getting it. But have not committed gun violence yet (but maybe there’s known evidence of domestic abuse)?