View Single Post
Old January 9, 2013, 04:33 PM   #55
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public.
Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?

Quote:
Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public.
If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?

That same logic is used to promote other bans...it may not stop it but it will make it marginally more difficult or levy extra punishments once the crime has been committed.

Quote:
Arguing that the 2nd amendment is absolute and felons should be able to own Stealth Bombers because restricting a person from owning an "inanimate object is immoral" only serves to marginalize gun ownership, and makes you personally lose credibility, especially to an on the fence or gun control advocate.
Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

That being said, can you directly refute the reasoning I presented towards limited restrictions? Or refute that someone with the financial means to purchase a large military vehicle or device, could not use those same financial means to create equal harm without said vehicle or device if they were determined to?

Quote:
The argument must be "the further restriction of firearm ownership will not reduce crime, and it is certainly not justifiable to further infringe upon the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS."
If this is what the argument must be in your eyes, and it's about law abiding citizens, that what is the specific harm in a law abiding citizen owning anything? Is it the potential that it could be stolen? the potential for an accident and the magnitude of that accident? or some undefined inherent trait of the <insert whatever device>?
sigcurious is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04374 seconds with 7 queries