- This topic has 167 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I think Rav Moshe did from the famous story of him not putting on a seatbelt until asked “to do a yid a favor”
Rav Moshe was pro gun control.
Daas what about doing some research first. Look up the mesilas Yeshorim. Look up some teshuvos. Look up the gemorros. Or just listen to rabbi reisman.
As for looking bf crossing the street I have a friend who has never looked when he crossed the street and he has never been hit ( he is blind) Hashem shomer.I’m sure he doesn’t randomly cross the street. Maybe he is able to use his other senses to compensate.
Besides, why just your friend, why not you? Do you not believe what you’re writing?
The 51% number comes from the aruch laner in his tshivos binyan tzion page 58 in the printing I have a copy of
Whether I use that as a life guideline in crossing the street is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that his opinion is way more authoritative then daas yochid11 Yidden were murdered yesterday in the type of attack which happens frequently in the US, but rarely in countries which don’t have our ridiculous gun culture.
Don’t tell me lack of gun control doesn’t create more than a 50% chance of people getting killed by guns.
I know that. Thats was MY point. That was why i said you cannot make the statements you made above. You asked him if he looks before crossing the stteet when its often less then 50% but that is just a distortion when the discussion is not about isolated specific cases. Same for your locking your door example. Its probanly not less then 50% if you don’t do it at all.
Whether I use that as a life guideline in crossing the street is irrelevant.
We don’t use it for matters of public policy. Gun control is a matter of public policy.
There is a much higher than 50% chance that allowing random people to own weapons will cause death.
As you only use internet for business, it’s possible that you don’t know that a crazy gun wielding anti Semite mudered 11 people on Shabbos in a Conservative temple.
Syag, I was asking him based on his own criteria.
You’re making the same point I was, but taking my posts out of context.
“Don’t tell me lack of gun control doesn’t create more than a 50% chance of people getting killed by guns.
Regardless of my view on gun control, do you realize you just dad that when you leave your house in the morning, or just wake up(?), there is a 50% chance you will be killed by a gun?
That was not his criteria at all. And i have learned the inyan he is discussing and it isnt “his criteria” in any case.
I said no such thing.
Neither did my dad.
Gun culture does exist, and you can’t just take away people’s guns.
Would the criminals who currently violate the law by shooting people suddenly decide they obey the law by not using automatic weapons. Could you make the penalty for illegal use of weapons severe enough as to deter those who are not currently convinced not to around murdering people? Are you suggesting a return to the traditional penalty for such persons (forfeiture of all property and estates, and a very public and painful execution).
NE -“guns if they so wished. But it seems obvious to me that a country like the UK, with very low gun ownership, is much better off in that regard than the US. The fact is, very few people get killed by guns in the UK, mass shootings simply don’t happen, and our terrorist attacks, when they do happen, kill much fewer people. That seems to me like a good thing.”
They might Not be killed by guns, but what about stabbing? Also, UK & Europe are out of control when it comes to terrrorism!
STOP living in your dream world.
“On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.”“Of course, the last time you responded to me, you said that a police officer on the bridge with an automatic weapon would have saved lives at the Westminster terror attack. I can’t imagine how this would work, how an officer firing through crowds of people at a speeding car would have led to less deaths, but there you are.”
I’m Not going to argue that point, because maybe your cops can’t shoot.
It was near Parliment – they could have had a Sharpshooter posted there. And he could have taken him out!The argument that people will break the law anyway so we might as well just not have the law at all is not a legitimate point. We shouldn’t still be having to say that here; this isn’t third grade.
“Gun culture does exist, and you can’t just take away people’s guns.”
Why not? Does the existence of drug culture prove that we can’t take away people’s drugs? Does the existence of polygamous cultures prove that we can’t enforce monogamy? Just because something has a backwards and deranged culture associated with it doesn’t mean it has to be legal forever.It’s unconstitutional and you don’t want to let that genie out of the bottle.
Is there anyone who here who does not believe that the US should ban all large round guns?
if we do that, then you can’t really massacre anyone and all problems solved.
someones going to ask about street gun crimes, so i’ll preempt them that most of it doesn’t involve citizens and is usually criminal on criminal. So gun crime probably helps prevent robberies from none-criminal-involved families.No, they should be allowed for people who are approved by the state and are in the state’s well regulated militia.
I’ve never claimed to care about the Constitution, which makes arguing with me weird. It’s come up before on the CR.
The Constitution is the Supreme Court’s problem. The belief that it’s meant to dictate the opinions of everyday Americans, and anyone who goes against it is a traitor is a relatively new thing. Even if the second amendment explicitly said “this means the right to automatic assault rifles,” why would I change my opinion? If a >200 year old document is outdated, I’m going to call it outdated. It’s not like it’s holy.
You have to use logic when you argue with me. Bringing proofs from the Constitution is totally meaningless in my opinion.
The Constitution doesn’t dictate opinion, but it is a reality. You don’t care about it, but it doesn’t care about you either, and it is currently in charge. Violating it would cause a civil war, and that would be ugly.
It’s been amended many times without causing a civil war.
The point is not whether or not the Constitution is “in charge.” My point is that it has no relevance in an opinionated discussion on an internet forum. You Constitutionists always act like if you pull a proof from the Constitution it automatically makes your opinion the only valid one. You agree with the opinions of the framers of the Constitution… So what? Others don’t. Nearly every other civilized country has been able to advance in this regard by not being tied down to a crusty peace of parchment like they’re some kind of secular theocracy.
“The Constitution doesn’t dictate opinion, but it is a reality. You don’t care about it, but it doesn’t care about you either, and it is currently in charge. Violating it would cause a civil war, and that would be ugly.”
If it is wrong, just because doing the right thing would cause a civil war isnt a good enough reason not to do it.
Unless you are arguing since the constitution allowed slavery we should still have slaves trying to change that might lead to civil war.
oh wait….If there is a good reason to allow civilians access to guns make that case. The constitution can (and has been) be changed.
furthermore the interpretation can certainly be changed, like in 2009 when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment was changed from applying to a “well-regulated milita” to “the people”and even then 4 of the supreme court justices disagreed with the new interpretation.
In short
1) Reasonable people can disagree as to the meaning of the constitution.
2) Even if it outright said “the right to keep and bear any kind of arm no matter the type, shall not be infringed and not be regulated in any way.” that STILL wouldn’t be a good reason to enforce said policyA pseudo-democratic government that allows its people too much freedom is better than one that chooses safety over freedom.
How am I a Constitutionist? I don’t agree with the opinions of the framers of the Constitution. I just don’t believe that it is safe to repeal one particular part of it. We need a whole new one.
“A pseudo-democratic government that allows its people too much freedom is better than one that chooses safety over freedom.”
Freedom would imply actually giving the population what they want regardless of whether or not it goes against the ancient document. In California, they used the Constitution to overturn Prop 8, which was voted in by popular vote. How is that protecting freedom?
If people want better gun-control, which I believe they do, they shouldn’t have their votes silenced by the NRA touting the constitution.
“We need a whole new one.”
That I agree with.
It is a bit silly to have a 240 year old man made document control our lives.
while Thomas Jefferson’s proposed 20 year expiration might be a bit short, maybe 100 years is a nice round number people can get behind.” allows its people too much freedom is better than one that chooses safety over freedom”
Except, that you dont actually believe that. (correct me if I’m wrong) You dont believe I have a right to own nuclear weapons, chemical weapons even a tank i’ll bet. In those cases you feel society’s safety outweighs my personal freedom (apologies if ‘m putting words in your mouth) . the only question is where to try the line.
but (almost) all agree that their are circumstances where safety should outweigh personal freedom.A few comments
Automatic Weapons: In the course of operation, all firearms perform 5 operations, they are:
1. Feeding. The cartridge is placed in position for step 2
2. Chambering. The cartridge is pushed into the firing chamber and locked in
3. Firing. Self-explanatory
4. Extraction. The chamber is unlocked and the spent cartridge case extracted from the chamber.
5. Ejection. The spent cartridge case is thrown clear of the firearm.
These five steps in order constitute one cycle. Note that all firearms perform these functions whether they operate automatically or manually.
Automatic weapons will begin to cycle when the trigger is depressed and continue to cycle as long as the trigger is held back. Semi-automatic weapons (sometimes called self-loading weapons) will perform one cycle when the trigger is depressed, but require the trigger to be reset and depressed again for each cycle. Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons use some of the energy of the firing cycle to operate the action; other firearms are operated by manual manipulation.
As to the legality of automatic weapons, prior to 1935 fully automatic weapons could be purchased freely in the U.S. (A magazine ad for the Auto Ordnance company in 1928 depicts a cowboy using a Thompson sub-machine gun to drive off cattle rustlers) The National Firearms Act of 1935 required that purchasers or owners of certain classes of weapons, automatic weapons among them, obtain a federal license to possess. This did not prohibit ownership of these weapons, only that they be licensed. Actual prohibition is left up to the States with some permitting and others prohibiting, for instance, New York totally prohibits the possession of automatic weapons while Massachusetts and Pennsylvania permit ownership with proper Federal licensing.
In addition to automatic weapons, the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1935 also required that a Federal License be obtained to purchase and/or own short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors (silencers) and destructive devices (hand grenades, C4, dynamite). would a nuclear device be considered a destructive device under the NFA and require a Federal license?
With regard to a popular armed uprising, google “battle of Athens Tennessee”Neville, you’re confusing freedom with democracy. Ubiquitin, I personally don’t believe that people should typically own weapons of war, including certain guns. However, a common interpretation of the Second Amendment allows only weapons of war, because weapons designed for personal self defense or for general security are not needed in a militia.
That point is trivial.
Its supporters say the Constitution protects us from overreaching government, which is absurd. The Weimar Republic probably had some form of constitution that didn’t stop Hitler; England definitely had a constitution which didn’t stop Oliver Cromwell from becoming a dictator. It fails at what it’s supposed to do.
It has, however, been used to silence state propositions (the most democratic, freedom-laced mechanism in the US). It’s also been used to destroy long-standing religious monuments in town parks which were loved by the townspeople.
How could anyone still think we need the militia clause? After seeing what “well-regulated militias” coming to power gets you from 20th century Europe or modern day Arab countries. All people need for self defense are pistols and shotguns, not assault rifles.
Legal question: Would it violate people’s rights if it became illegal for gun owners to consume commercially produced breakfast cereals?
NCB -“After seeing what “well-regulated militias” coming to power gets you from 20th century Europe or modern day Arab countries. All people need for self defense are pistols and shotguns, not assault rifles.”
Who are you kidding? If people from the caravan try to jump the border – they should be shot.
A lot aren’t just refugees, but criminals. Most of the army that are going there aren’t Armed.
Some Border Patrol units are armed. I think all the Militias are heavily ARMED!RebYid: That isn’t a legal question. I’m not really sure where you’re even trying to go with it, unless you’re just kind of joking around.
Health: Nobody interprets the second amendment as the right to open fire on anyone who he thinks deserves it. I’m all for stopping the migrants, but it should be done by the military and police.
It is a legal question. There is a right to bear arms, but there is no right to breakfast cereal. Is there a right to not be discriminated against for bearing arms, or can the government make laws depriving gun owners of breakfast cereal privileges, just as an example?
I think that it’s obvious that:
gun control laws that would ban small arms would not keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals because:
1) It is the tool of their trade
2) Laws don’t deter criminals, that IS why they are criminalsSuch ban(s) would do a GREAT job of keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby increasing the criminals advantage.
On the other hand, obviously some form of gun control is necessary (can’t have the criminally insane walking into the corner 7/11 and buying an AK-47 with a slurpee).
As usual the devil is in the details
Then why are there rules against carrying knife type weapons on the street when you can buy a knife at the corner store?
“Laws don’t deter criminals, that IS why they are criminals”
So what’s the point of having any laws ever then? Don’t tell me I’m straw man’ing either; I really want you to answer the question. If, in your mind, laws will always just be broken anyway, why shouldn’t that apply to everything?
NCB -“Health: Nobody interprets the second amendment as the right to open fire on anyone who he thinks deserves it.”
The Militiamen will engage them. If the Border Crossers start attacking – the Militia will defend themselves!
“I’m all for stopping the migrants, but it should be done by the military and police.”
It’s Illegal for the army to do police work. That’s why we have the Border Patrol.
Neville, the laws can be divided into laws that are laws because the thing itself is bad, and laws that are laws due to a secondary reason, such as a safety issue.
Redleg,
that type of uprising wouldn’t be neccessary, or if it was, it wouldn’t work nowadays for 2 reasons.1) easy access to a powerful social/media, therefore the governor wouldn’t be able to ignore it the problems with the voting issues.
2) the reason the uprising worked is because the national guard took to long to come, now days can they come much faster.
Besides, those same citizens are the ones who might believe that jews are evil and go shoot a bunch of them.
RebYid: I think a comparison would be certain objects that are only used for the use of illegal drugs. These devices are actually 100% legal to own and sell even though they will inevitably be used to something illegal. I see no logic in this, but it’s the law. You guys would say this makes sense because drug-addicts would find ways to illegally obtain the paraphernalia just like they illegally obtain the drugs?
The flaw in that argument is that you can’t always get the criminal for the crime you know he violated. Some times you have to lock up Al Capone for tax evasion. Or, lock up a gang member for owning illegal weapons, if that’s all you can prove.
Why should it be a “right” to have something that’s only use is to do bad, like drug paraphernalia? The only difference between it and guns is the Constitution argument.
My two cents:
Fact: guns kill more people more quickly than knivesFact: in countries such as the UK where guns are banned, terrorists kill by other means. Some, like cars can kill as many as guns
Feeling: its scarier to feel one may be stabbed than one may be shot. Stabbing is a more painful scarier way to die. (Not that any of the above should happen to anyone cvs. I’m not choosing between the two cvs.)
Fact: in Israel, many people have guns and there still arent the mass shootings now rampant in America
Fact: America wasnt always subject with rampant mass gun shootings.
Fact: moral standards have declined on an educational level in America
Conclusion: the problem and solution isn’t the guns or lack of funds(although common sense would dictate that whoever owns a gun should be heavily screened and cleared of any violent history etc). The problem is that in a self centered society, people are increasingly seeing nothing wrong with taking away human life. With G-d centered society, knowing that one will be answerable to G-d for his actions, even if he can fool the police, and that people are created in G-ds image, so it is wrong to casually kill people UNLIKE animals, society isn’t plagued with such issues. You don’t see it in Israel and you didn’t even see it in America when it was a place where family values were espoused and G-d was frequently mentioned by parents to their children.
So the solution isn’t the taking away of guns (although that may serve an urgent temporary stopgap to decrease the number of murdered) as the murderers will find another medium such as a knife or car.
The solution is in education – to talk about G-d more, respect for authotity etc.
Aye you may say that’s against the rules – well confiscating all guns would also require changing the rules and would not address the core issue. If we’re gonna fight to change the rules, maybe we should fight to change the ones that will bring across the most change?
Neville, not everyone agrees that drugs are bad, and there needs to be a reason for something to be illegal, not the other way around. Also, you are a person who doesn’t value guns. The fact that certain people value guns means that taking away the guns from them would be taking away something they value, which is a cost you have to take into account.
Guns have value to some people.
The idea that those wishing to cause harm can just use knives or cars simply doesn’t stand up. There’s two crucial distinctions: Firstly, cars and knives are common and necessary everyday objects. You can require licenses and not sell knives to children, but there’s no reasonable way to stop people misusing them. The same cannot be said for guns, the sole purpose of which is it to kill.
Secondly, a country where criminals and terrorist use knives and cars instead of guns is far safer, to a huge degree. For example, the UK has a high Islamic terrorist threat, but the death toll is relatively low. There have been two notable suicide bomb attacks with large casualty counts, but that’s a seperate issue, as people make their own bombs, unlike guns. The death toll from attacks not using bombs is much lower than they would have been had guns been available. San Bernandino had a higher casualty toll than Woolwich, Borough Market & Westminster combined, not to mention many failed attempts. The difference is guns.
It’s true that I can’t imagine any workable way America can reverse the situation on guns, practically speaking. And there’s probably not the political will either. But that doesn’t mean a lot of the various arguments I’ve seem make any sense.
Fact: A terrorist with access to a gun is far more dangerous than one without, generally speaking.
Fact: A country with widespread gun ownership is generally less safe than one without.
Fact: Cars and knives are useful, common everyday items. There’s no reasonable way to keep them away from terrorists or criminals. The same is not true for guns, the sole purpose of which are to cause harm.
Fact: Israel does not have guns freely available. They’re highly regulated and only available to specific individuals, often ex-military. The sort of people who’ve carried out massacres in the US would not be able to get hold of guns in Israel.
Fact: I’m very glad I don’t live in a country with widespread gun ownership.
RebYid: So, you think drugs should be legal since some people like them? I guess at least you could say they serve a purpose to some people other than murder, so it’s almost more logical for them to be legal than guns.
On the point that some people value guns: yes, MS-13 members, Islamic terrorists, budding serial killers all value guns. I have come to the conclusion that ruining those people’s days is worth it for the greater good.
The fact that people like them is a cost to banning them, but that’s not why I think drugs should be legal.
Speaking of terrorists in Las Vegas, I don’t seen any mention in YWN of Conor Climo, the white supremacist who was arrested last week for plotting to attack a synagogue, the ADL, and a bar.
It doesn’t mean all guns should be outlawed, but these guns that are used in combat causing great harm must be forbiddeh for the individual to use.
I just heard that the 2nd amendment was instituted to protect human lifes not vice versa.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.