"He (Bush) speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him." - Graydon Carter
Do you really view background checks and waiting periods as a war on guns?
Is some sort of prior restraint relating to abortions war on women's rights or not? Seems I've heard even minor limits to abortion decried as a war on women's rights.
I mean, some places have graduated licencing for cars, and everybody does driver testing, but I never hear anybody complaining about the war on cars.
You do not need a license to buy or own a car. You don't need a license to possess a car. There are no background checks, limits on purchase, and other factors. If someone takes a car and misuses it while drunk, no-one thinks that you could sue GM to say that the car manufacturer was at fault for the misuse of the car. If you misuse a car and have an accident, you're not going to permanently loose your right to own or operate a car. You don't need to get the permission of a local law enforcement officer to buy a car nor to drive it. If you complain that your application is taking too long, you're not denied the transfer of the registration of your car. If you move from one county or another, your car license doesn't' become invalid. If you drive to another state, you don't have to worry if that state recognizes your state's driver's license.
I have two books that are about a inch and a half thick, fine paper printing that are state and federal laws on firearms alone. They're mostly criminal in nature. Most auto infractions are basic fines and penalties. Hell, you can kill someone with an a failure to yield/left turn and be liable for a single <$1000 fine in most states and keep your license.
Proposals for laws at the state and federal level have varied from this gun is too small and should be banned (Pocket rockets aka compact handguns), to this gun is too fast firing and powerful and should be banned(assault weapons aka semi-automatic rifles), to this gun is too powerful and accurate (Sniper rifles aka deer rifles). I've seen attempts to limit ammo based on a 2000% Tax. Assault weapons were banned on the basis of their powerful cartridges and fast follow on shots when the range of cartridges was from .22 rimfire to .308. One weapon was illegal and made you subject to a 10 year federal jail term while the same weapon with a different hand grip was perfectly legal. Magazines over 10 rounds were banned, but any already in circulation were legal. This was like having an Audi A4 totally legal, but an Audi TT considered law enforcement only. But if you put different tires on your A4, you were liable for jail time. Does a spoiler added to a car make it a Formula One racing car? It does in the gunworld.
Currently, there's a limit on the number of imported parts in a semi-automatic firearm. Use too many non US made parts and you're liable for jail, this isn't protectionism, it's based on ATF regs to try to limit imports of demilled rifles that people then legally reassemble from locally made receivers. ATF can write new regs and apply thim without congressional approval. Most recent was the ban on imported barrel parts, this raised a big uproar and I think they've backed down.
Then there's the ATF and their method of prosecuting crimes. They claim to NEVER make mistakes and will testify to that fact under oath, yet a director was video taped saying they will always testify to that fact, even though they know they've made raids to arrest someone for violation of Federal laws when the subject of the raid was perfectly in compliance and had the ATF filed paperwork to prove it and was waving it in their faces. The ATF has a serious number of errors in the NFA registry of 728,000 legally held machine guns, yet, refuses to acknowledge that fact.
Is some sort of prior restraint relating to abortions war on women's rights or not? Seems I've heard even minor limits to abortion decried as a war on women's rights.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a seperate argument.)
Most of what you write seems to point to a need for consistancy in regulation. I'll have a closer look at your links when I get some time.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I'm comparing rights that have serious repercussions. Abortion is in fact one of those. It is the termination of a life at some point. Certainly in the last trimester up to the last day of pregnancy it is the death of something that is either alive or nearly just. Given that there's no hard day of its not alive/its alive, there's some fuzzy point between the transition from a part of the mother's body to an as yet unborn life.
Firearms are just as grave but aren't the pet right of the left (unless it's the right of the government to exert deadly force on the population which is how it's couched half the time by democrats). The right of self defense is a basic right. No-one in their right mind can argue against that point. Yet, there are an inch and a half of laws in two binders above me, what are the regulations on speech, abortion or other rights again? Most laws aimed at restricting speech for example are struck down on the basis of prior restraint (CDA for example) regardless of the harmful effects of such speech.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a separate argument.)
If we're comparing accidental and criminal use, then cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous based on their US national 'accidental' death rates of 40,000 people per year. Firearms have something like 600 deaths per year relating to accidental uses. Seems to me, automobiles are far more dangerous to the users or others around and yet there's no cries for stricter licensing or regulation of cars is there?
Checkout www.guncite.com as well. Lots of material there.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Is some sort of prior restraint relating to abortions war on women's rights or not? Seems I've heard even minor limits to abortion decried as a war on women's rights.
I mean, some places have graduated licencing for cars, and everybody does driver testing, but I never hear anybody complaining about the war on cars.
You do not need a license to buy or own a car. You don't need a license to possess a car. There are no background checks, limits on purchase, and other factors. If someone takes a car and misuses it while drunk, no-one thinks that you could sue GM to say that the car manufacturer was at fault for the misuse of the car. If you misuse a car and have an accident, you're not going to permanently loose your right to own or operate a car. You don't need to get the permission of a local law enforcement officer to buy a car nor to drive it. If you complain that your application is taking too long, you're not denied the transfer of the registration of your car. If you move from one county or another, your car license doesn't' become invalid. If you drive to another state, you don't have to worry if that state recognizes your state's driver's license.
I have two books that are about a inch and a half thick, fine paper printing that are state and federal laws on firearms alone. They're mostly criminal in nature. Most auto infractions are basic fines and penalties. Hell, you can kill someone with an a failure to yield/left turn and be liable for a single <$1000 fine in most states and keep your license.
Proposals for laws at the state and federal level have varied from this gun is too small and should be banned (Pocket rockets aka compact handguns), to this gun is too fast firing and powerful and should be banned(assault weapons aka semi-automatic rifles), to this gun is too powerful and accurate (Sniper rifles aka deer rifles). I've seen attempts to limit ammo based on a 2000% Tax. Assault weapons were banned on the basis of their powerful cartridges and fast follow on shots when the range of cartridges was from .22 rimfire to .308. One weapon was illegal and made you subject to a 10 year federal jail term while the same weapon with a different hand grip was perfectly legal. Magazines over 10 rounds were banned, but any already in circulation were legal. This was like having an Audi A4 totally legal, but an Audi TT considered law enforcement only. But if you put different tires on your A4, you were liable for jail time. Does a spoiler added to a car make it a Formula One racing car? It does in the gunworld.
Currently, there's a limit on the number of imported parts in a semi-automatic firearm. Use too many non US made parts and you're liable for jail, this isn't protectionism, it's based on ATF regs to try to limit imports of demilled rifles that people then legally reassemble from locally made receivers. ATF can write new regs and apply thim without congressional approval. Most recent was the ban on imported barrel parts, this raised a big uproar and I think they've backed down.
Then there's the ATF and their method of prosecuting crimes. They claim to NEVER make mistakes and will testify to that fact under oath, yet a director was video taped saying they will always testify to that fact, even though they know they've made raids to arrest someone for violation of Federal laws when the subject of the raid was perfectly in compliance and had the ATF filed paperwork to prove it and was waving it in their faces. The ATF has a serious number of errors in the NFA registry of 728,000 legally held machine guns, yet, refuses to acknowledge that fact.
no subject
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a seperate argument.)
Most of what you write seems to point to a need for consistancy in regulation. I'll have a closer look at your links when I get some time.
no subject
I'm comparing rights that have serious repercussions. Abortion is in fact one of those. It is the termination of a life at some point. Certainly in the last trimester up to the last day of pregnancy it is the death of something that is either alive or nearly just. Given that there's no hard day of its not alive/its alive, there's some fuzzy point between the transition from a part of the mother's body to an as yet unborn life.
Firearms are just as grave but aren't the pet right of the left (unless it's the right of the government to exert deadly force on the population which is how it's couched half the time by democrats). The right of self defense is a basic right. No-one in their right mind can argue against that point. Yet, there are an inch and a half of laws in two binders above me, what are the regulations on speech, abortion or other rights again? Most laws aimed at restricting speech for example are struck down on the basis of prior restraint (CDA for example) regardless of the harmful effects of such speech.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a separate argument.)
If we're comparing accidental and criminal use, then cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous based on their US national 'accidental' death rates of 40,000 people per year. Firearms have something like 600 deaths per year relating to accidental uses. Seems to me, automobiles are far more dangerous to the users or others around and yet there's no cries for stricter licensing or regulation of cars is there?
Checkout www.guncite.com as well. Lots of material there.