Speakeasy forum: Here's where gun contol is most needed

For clarity, my last paragraph was:

"You are comparing laws that restrict use (on public property) with laws that restrict purchase/ownership (under any circumstances)."

>"But wouldn't you oppose any laws restricting your carrying of guns you own on public property?"

Yes, because "carrying" a firearm is not using a firearm. Actually using--i.e. discharging--a firearm in public (absent exigent circumstances) is already restricted/illegal. e.g. I believe the Aurora, Colorado shooter has been charged with, among other things, "discharging a firearm within the city limits" (which further underscores the point that laws don't stop criminals).

>"You wouldn't accept any weapon that was legal to buy to being resticted to your own property would you?"

No. Just like you do not have to have a Driver's License to be sitting in a parked car on public property (unless you're an illegal alien in Arizona).

Mark

the car has to have the keys in the ignition, and in some places that is enough, even if it's not cranked. The way around it is remote start in which the engine can run, keeping occupants cool or warm as needed, while NOT in the ignition, and the car can't be driven until the key is inserted and turned on, also most have an RPM cut off, not to mention the brake disable which turns the engine off.

So, one could be sleeping in the back seat drunk, with the engine running due to remote start, but have the keys in his pocket, and still not be charged with DUI.

how it would apply there.

I can't even recall the name of the car that I had in the late 70's *used, of course, that actually had a push button transmission instead of a steering column or floor shifter. It was pretty cool but never saw another vehicle made with that after that.

though a couple of pushbuttons were gone, he had a 1/2 steel rod laying in the seat to stick in the hole and push since the cap was gone.

>"sitting behind the wheel of a parked car while intoxicated can still get you arrested."

1) Irrelevant. That does not refute my point that one does not need a Drivers License to be sitting in a parked car (because the person is not "using" the vehicle).

2) Arrested is not the same as charged, much less convicted.

3) It's my understanding that in order for charges/convictions to be upheld, the prosecution must establish that the defendant actually drove (read: "used") the vehicle while under the influence. (e.g. defendant is the only occupant in the vehicle and no source of alcohol within walking distance.) So this is a flawed analogy since it requires use, whereas, as I noted previously, gun control is about regulating purchase/ownership.

>"Sitting in a parked car supposely has nothing to with driving one, at least not in the passenger seats, so had nothing to do with carrying a gun, driver's license or not."

Yes, sitting in a parked car has nothing to do with actually driving (read: "using") one, which is why one does not need a Driver's License to do so. My point is/was that, by that same logic, since merely having a firearm on your person has nothing to do with actually firing (read: "using") one, there should be no License required here, either.

>"So you rather everyone was like a wild west movie, revolver strapped to their hip, rifle slung over the back of their car seat."

I'd rather we live in a free society in which everyone is free to exercise any of their Constitutional Rights or not at their sole discretion without any restrictions by the Federal Government, just like it says in the Constitution.

>"Do you really think that would reduce shootings?"

Irrelevant by your own previous statement in this thread:

http://forums.cnet.com/7726-6130_102-5421186.html

"Arguing that xxx kills more than guns actually in the end has little to do with and contributes nothing to the discussion about what gun control there should or should not be."

Substitute "reduce shootings" for "kills more".

As I agreed in my previous response, "As I said both above in this post and in a previous post, it should be about the overall affect on society, not just what kills more people."

Again, substitute "reduce shootings" for "kills more people" - Mark

Straw man. I never said that there wasn't; I said there shouldn't be. There's a difference.

It's also quite easy to posses a gun without firing it - Mark

Walked into a grocery store with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Apparently it's legal to do that there. He caused quite a panic but the police couldn't arrest him. The guy even had a note in his pocket explaining that he was "exercising his Second Amendment rights" in case he was shot to death. Idiot.

How does that "straw man" thing work anyways...someone says something, the other person shouts "STRAW MAN!" and then?

What if the other person shouts back.... SHENANIGAN!

fall back to ad hominem.

ad hominem?..Does that mean, fall back to "looking like an idiot going out to dinner with an assault type weapon on your back( whatever an assault type weapon looks like)?

merely having a firearm on your person has nothing to do with actually firing (read: "using") one,

Nothing?...it has NOTHING? NOTHING to do with firing one?

BUT firing one, has something to do with having a weapon on your person.

Remote control...that's how YOU fire a weapon it? You don't use YOUR finger?

"What are your feelings on allowing civilians to possess chemical warfare weapons?"

You mean like mixing chlorox and Muriatic acid? Or burning sulfur? Or mixing chlorox and ammonia water?

if those labels, which are designed to prevent accidental lethal gassing, don't also give nut jobs ideas of how to poison people on the cheap and easy.

>"No need to ban them...Every time they speed, fine them...if they don't pay, or keep speeding, THEN you take their drivers license away, they keep driving, put them in jail, they still keep driving...keep them in jail longer."

Agreed. Crime control, not car control.

>"They do?"

Admittedly subjective, but IMO yes, they do.

http://0.tqn.com/d/exoticcars/1/0/-/2/-/-/Tesla-2.JPG

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201006/ferrari-599-roadster_460x0w.jpg

>"What are your feelings on allowing civilians to possess chemical warfare weapons?"

http://forums.cnet.com/7726-6130_102-2748944.html

Substitute "chemical" for "nuclear".

Mark

ONLY hits its target...NO collateral damage...get to work on that one.

with all the knowledge and training he has because of his view of personal insult and injury from them.