He’s pointing out that the particular slippery slope you’re so dismissive of has actually happened in a country not too different from our own. I’m not sure how you get from “Australia restricts utility knife ownership” to “it’s a logical fallacy to claim that anyone would restrict utility knife ownership.”
1 Like
Yup! I’ve used my Leatherman to repair the grab handle on a friend’s car, fix a coworker’s broken fan knob, remove an ill-placed tree branch in a friend’s front yard, open boxes at work… None of which would have worked if I’d kept it in my car, BTW, since I don’t have one.
But let’s be honest, we all know you’re just driving trollies now. Calling for increased gun regulations is one thing, but you’ve let your message slip so far that you’re now pretending to be concerned for the regulation of common household tools. You’ve tipped your hand, kid: you’re supposed to keep it convincing. You won’t find anyone to argue with you if you can’t at least pretend to be sane.
1 Like
[quote=“Glitch, post:25, topic:36211, full:true”]
If giving private citizens killing machines so they can use them as toys to shoot bottles results in even a single human death, I can’t see how it’s worth it.[/quote]
And that statement alone should be where I completely write you off as a nutter and walk away. It’s so completely absurd and illogical that if one were to apply this line of thinking to just about anything else in reality, it would be instantly laughed at.
Let’s just think about a few things that could be considered “placing luxury entertainment above basic human empathy and decency.” I mean if it saves the life of ONE person or extends their life a few years, it should be worth it, right?
Jet skis, motorcycles, sky diving, private swimming pools (statistically more likely to lead to an accidental death than a gun in the house), hell - ANY swimming pools, ATVs, swords, fireworks, many knives, model rockets, rock climbing, scuba diving, nearly all organized sports (local kid died in a little league game from a ball to the chest), skiing, racing, trebuchet or catapult building, boating, butane torches, bicycles, skateboards, inline and roller skates, pogo sticks, jungle gyms, swings, sharp sticks, blunt objects, baseball bats (won’t need them if we ban that dangerous sport), walks off of established nature trails, smoking, drinking, drugs, trans-fats, bad-cholesterol, large soft drinks, bungee jumping, trampolines (they called them “jumpolines” until your mom used one), sun bathing, dry ice, etc etc etc.
Let’s think about the many hazards that are in our home that might be made safer with “communal or governmental… ownership” or at the very least requiring only licensed individuals. Chain saws, ladders, nail guns, home electrical repairs, power saws. Household chemicals poison people every year. Why not use a communal service where people come in and clean your home and laundry, taking any dangerous chemicals with them (if it saves ONE life, right?) Banning cars and requiring only the use of trains and buses would save thousands of lives a year.
[quote=“Glitch, post:25, topic:36211, full:true”]
Talk about a sense of entitlement.[/quote]
You want to tell millions of people what they can or can’t own, and I’M the one with a sense of entitlement?
[quote=“Glitch, post:25, topic:36211, full:true”]
Private gun ownership isn’t about practical need, it’s about emotional and psychological fulfillment. People don’t like feeling weak, or like they aren’t in control of their lives - but give a person the power over life and death, and they feel empowered and important. They gain a sense of agency, of authority conferred by might.[/quote]
I didn’t realize Lucky Charms now came with pop psychology degrees. All I got was purple horse shoes.
So what trauma in your life lead to this complete irrational fear and feeling of being powerless because of an inanimate object? Do other things like large men, red headed women, or melee weapons give you the same feelings?
[quote=“Glitch, post:25, topic:36211, full:true”]
There is no rational reason to allow private ownership - especially of handguns. Exceptions might be made for hunting and sporting longarms, but there’s really no excuse whatsoever for the prevalence of handguns in our society today. [/quote]
You say that, but thus far I haven’t heard of any good argument against it - just insistence that other people don’t really need what you don’t like, and that some how your opinion on what people should or shouldn’t own is something anyone should listen to.
1 Like
Since the original topic was about justifying where and why people carry firearms, it logically follows that when you bring up Australia’s legal restrictions on carrying knives in public, the discussion should take much the same course.
But like I said, you have a sense of entitlement. You believe you are entitled to carry knives and guns in public. Nevermind that you have no rational need for such objects in public - you simply want to be able to carry lethal weapons around for no reason at all.
With knives there is some degree of room for reasonable allowances, obviously. After all, knives are markedly less dangerous objects than guns, and are a common fact of human civilization.
I actually got curious about the restrictions you seemed to suggest Australia places on knives, so I did a quick google search for information. The top result, the veracity of which I’ve not double checked but which I have little immediate reason to doubt, states the following:
The Weapons Act 1990 says “a person must not physically possess a knife in a public place or a school, unless the person has a reasonable excuse”. A reasonable excuse includes:
- to perform a lawful activity, duty or employment; or
- to participate in a lawful entertainment, recreation or sport; or
for use for a lawful purpose.
The Act goes on to give examples:
- a person may carry a knife on his or her belt for performing work in primary production;
- a fisher may carry a knife for use while fishing.
- a person may use a knife to prepare or cut food at a restaurant in a public place or when having a picnic in a park.
- a person may carry a pen knife or Swiss army knife for use for its normal utility purposes.
So the entire discussion is moot, and your argument is effectively a straw man built on top of a slippery slope. Australia would have absolutely zero problem with your Leatherman Wave, or any other reasonable utility knife. They would probably take offense to you strapping a combat knife to your leg, though.
[quote=“Kevin_Harrelson, post:41, topic:36211”]
And there are other countries in Europe where all citizens are given rifles to take home after their military service, and yet the murder rate is lower there, despite practically all adults being armed.[/quote]
I’m afraid I have to ask for you to give concrete examples. Which countries in Europe are we talking about? What kinds of rifles, and what kind of military service? Who actually legally owns the rifle? How much lower is the muder rate? How different are the gun ownership rates? What sorts of restrictions and regulations exist?
For example, a government issuing a battle rifle to every citizen eligible for mandatory national military service to be somehow securely stored in their private homes, and which they neither own nor are allowed to use without government authorization in time of war or similar, wouldn’t be remotely comparable.
Russia’s gun controls aren’t that much more stringent that our own.
It’s illegal for Russian citizens to own automatic and semi-automatic guns. It’s possible to apply for a handgun or shotgun license, though citizens are required to provide reasons such as hunting or target shooting.
Applicants face strict background checks, including criminal history, a full psychological evaluation and a medical exam. They must pass a test on firearm laws and safety. Each weapon is then registered by the police during a home visit. Police take bullet patterns, test bullets and cartridges so bullets can be matched if the gun is used in a crime. A license lasts five years, after which applicants must go through the whole process again.
So major differences include a ban on semi-automatics, uniform licensing (some US states require licenses to purchase and own firearms, others do not), medical and psych evaluations (good ideas which we should adopt), a proficiency examination (another good idea), and a five year renewal plan (also a good idea, but arguably with room for tweaking).
What about any of that is unreasonable or undesireable?
That said, we still have to figure out the homicide portion of the issue. We immediately hit a snag in doing so in the fact that Russia doesn’t differentiate firearm related homicide from other varieties - they simply report total homicides in a single statistic, making it impossible to make direct comparisons.
That said, we do know that the reported number of firearms in Russia is much lower - less than 15 million compared to our 300 million plus. That’s a rather big difference, so what accounts for their much higher homicide rate - nearly twice our own?
Unfortunately my knowledge of Russia isn’t the greatest, but I do know that the country boasts an absurdly corrupt government and wealthy elite oligarchy. The collapse of the USSR wasn’t pretty, and in the intervening years Russia has been subject to some seriously messed up internal affairs.
A big part of Russia’s problem is the Vory. Organized crime is flourishing in the post-soviet world, far worse than anything the US has seen for a long time, possibly ever. It hardly seems like a stretch to attribute a large portion of the difference in homidice rates directly to the difference in criminal enterprise.
One should also consider Russia’s various ethnic conflicts. There’s an awful lot of intolerance and bigotry in the country, and it spills over into ethnic violence - to say nothing of full blown rebellions and minor wars.
From the Ukraine to Chechnya, Russia has been a hotbed of racial and cultural strife for the past quarter century - a fact which almost certainly contributes greatly to the homicide rate. I wouldn’t even put it past the Russian government to include deaths of Russian soldiers during major uprisings among their homicide numbers - much like the UK infamously treating IRA soldiers as criminals instead of enemy soldiers in the 80s and 90s.
So you’ve used your Leatherman in a private vehicle, at a private workplace, at a private home, and again at a private workplace. Do you know what the word “public” means?
But I’ll point out again, this entire thread of discourse is moot - you’re misinfomed about Australia’s knife laws, and your Leatherman Wave is perfectly legal to carry anywhere you like.
Except - surprise surprise - it turns out it hasn’t actually happened in a country not too different from our own! I looked it up - Australian knife laws are essentially the same as US ones. Oops?
See, this is part of the problem of the slippery slope argument. It makes assumptions that have no basis in reality.
Just because a nation restricts the ownership and possession of firearms doesn’t mean they’re destined to go on to restrict the ownership and possession of anything else.
And even in cases where people do go on to restrict the ownership and possession of other objects, that doesn’t mean that the previous restriction of firearms caused - or even had anything remotely to do with - the later restrictions.
If a city puts up a sign saying “Stay Off The Grass”, and then a week later puts up a sign saying “No Littering”, you can’t simply assume that the reason they disallowed littering is because they first disallowed walking on the grass.
It doesn’t logically follow - the conclusion is irrational, because it is not supported by any evidence. The two restrictions can quite easily be completely unrelated and imposed for entirely different reasons.
You cannot with any rational basis state that the the imposition of the first restriction resulted in, or was responsible for, the imposition of the second restriction.
Hence why the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Allowing homosexual marriage doesn’t mean you’re going to allow people to marry goats or bowls of cereal. Allowing women to vote doesn’t mean you’re going to allow babies and household pets to vote. Restricting gun access doesn’t mean you’re going to restrict pencil access or toilet paper tube access.
And even when you do restrict those things, it doesn’t mean you did so because you restricted something else first.
Yes, I AM entitled to a lot of things. They are called “rights” and I get bothered when people try to take them away.
A common fact, if you justify why you need one.
BTW: that link is one of the ones that I posted first proving my point.
First of all, wrong on EVERY count. If I carry a leatherman wave, it is NO business of anybody WHY I carry one in the US. I am an engineer, not an electrician, so I could not justify using one for work, despite the fact that I use mine at least three times a day for various small jobs.
I should not have to justify WHY I have one. Australia would have a problem, because, according to their law I have to have an excuse. Give me an excuse why you need freedom of speech. Why exactly do you need protection from searches without a warrant? Freedom does not require an excuse.
Switzerland comes to mind immediately. Also, it is illegal to use them for non-military uses. The last time I checked, homicide was illegal in this country too. Laws really only have an effect on those that choose to follow them. Are you telling me that if a person who had access to a military rifle wanted to murder somebody illegally, a law that they are not supposed to use their rifle for that purpose will stop them? There is a word for people who think like that…
Oh, no. Not that different at all, except for the fact that it is a LOT more restrictive. So, physically disabled people, who arguably need guns for defense the most, are not allowed to have them. Oh, and 80% of the guns in this country would be illegal there.
I do agree about needing safety training before buying any firearms. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, but it is also a RESPONSIBILITY. If you choose to do it, you should at least know how to safely handle and store one.
So, if a person is stabbed or beaten to death, they are somehow less dead that one shot to death? Does it really matter HOW they were killed? In fact, if given a choice, being beaten to death would be near the bottom of my list of ways to die — way below being shot to death.
But wait, if you are right then automatically less guns == less murders. Are you now saying that gun ownership and the murder rate might actually NOT be related? The horrors! Do you think that things like economics, political structure, family structure, spiritual health, and the family unit might also have MORE of an effect on murders than one simple number? Whoda thunk? Well, in that case, maybe fixing things like poverty and access to mental health care might have much MORE impact on homicide than simply banning guns?
Wow. You are SO right. So, keep a multi-tool at work. Keep another one at each of your friend’s houses, and maybe another one at home. Just hope that you do not need one when you are between these locations. Or, when you need one, you can just order it and get it fed-exed to you while you wait? Hey, maybe Amazon’s delivery drone would be the perfect fix for this. Order a new multi-tool when you need one rather than carrying it. Riiiight.
Yup, you can carry one with an excuse – an excuse that is acceptable to a policeman. Will the policeman accept your excuse? It depends. Are you the same race as the policeman? Is the policeman in a good mood? Does the policeman find you attractive? Wow. I am glad that there is no uncertainty there.
To summarize, it seems like you would be much happier living in a communist country, where you do not have many decisions to make and the government keeps you safe from everybody – so then the government is the only thing you have to worry about.
Looks like you were a few seconds too slow there.
Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.
If private gun ownership contributes to the destruction of Life, one of only three things we have rights to which the US Constitution states are inalienable, then private gun ownership must be checked. To do otherwise is to deny the most basic, fundamental rights you purport to ascribe to.
If a right is not inalienable, then it is something you are granted. Such rights are “alienable” - they can be changed, or they can be abolished. The fact that you possess a right at one point in time is no guarantee that you will possess that right at another. Lawful changes to the laws and Constitution of the nation occur all the time.
For example, US Citizens used to have the right to own slaves - this right was revoked in 1865, with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. Countless passionate individuals just like yourself violently opposed to abolition of this right, refusing to accept the rule of law and due process and instead engaging in unlawful armed insurrection against the democratically elected government of the nation. This was the American Civil War.
Yes, you have the right to possess property - but it only extends until the possession of said property infringes on the rights of others. The possession of the property of slaves perfectly exemplifies this concept - you cannot possess a person as property without denying them their inalienable rights.
As I stated in a prior post, you place your right to a needless luxury entertainment over the rights of others to live. If I am asked to choose between supporting your right to shoot bottles with a gun you privately own, and the right of even a single person to have their life be as unendangered by private gun ownership as possible, I am morally, legally, and rationally compelled to deny your right in deference to theirs.
No one said anything at all about carrying a multi-tool in the US. You’re completely off topic, and I have no clue why or how you got there.
Really? Humans don’t have to justify their actions?
Most people would agree, carrying around a multi-tool or even a pocket knife isn’t a big deal. Why? Because it’s a justifiable act. Such objects have legitimate, reasonable uses which justify one’s possession of such things.
If they did not have any justification for possession, by definition we would have no reason to allow them. If the only conceiveable purpose for possessing a knife was imminent wrongful murder, there could be no possible justification for possessing one.
Justification is required for every action. If you cannot justify an act, it is by definition an unjust act.
Fortunately, most acts require very little justification. Things like whistling a tune require no more justification than “I felt like it”.
Carrying a knife on your person requires a little bit more justification, but not all that much - saying “it’s a small utility blade and the odds of it ever being used to harm anyone in any significant way are utterly insignificant” will suffice in most circumstances.
Carrying a knife into an elementary school requires a somewhat more justification. Maybe if you’re a maintenance person who works there and uses a multi-tool as part of your work, the presence of a small blade is probably justified. If you’re a parent attending a school play, you’re probably not terribly justified in bringing your multi-tool in with you, and it would be reasonable for people to expect you to leave it behind, given the situation.
Carrying an assault rifle into your local grocery store requires quite a lot of justification - unless you live in Texas, it seems. It’s pretty damn hard to justify that kind of an act, despite the fact that in Texas you currently have the legal right to engage in such a behavior.
Justification is required for every action, great or small. Some acts - like depriving someone of their Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness - require extreme justification. Others require next to none at all.
Regardless of your own personal beliefs on whether you should have to justify yourself, the reality of the situation is that you do have to justify yourself. Taking offense at others finding your justification for an act lacking is irrational and egotistical.
No, that is not remotely what I’m saying.
The presence of firearms directly influences gun violence. The mere fact that other factors also directly influence gun violence does not negate that.
Economic, political, medical, and social factors play an important part in gun violence, and I have consistantly argued for changes in these fields intended to ameliorate gun crime and violence, among other societal ills. That in no way means that I cannot also argue for changes in gun ownership as well.
Or maybe you can not reduce an argument to absurdity? (And maybe not continue an argument that is entirely irrelevant because Australia doesn’t actually criminalize the possession of a multi-tool, while you’re at it?)
The law makes certain allowances for the transportation of restricted objects between locations. Under such restrictions, you might not be allowed to wear a knife on your person, but you could still transport it in a proper container like a toolbox or similar.
You’re really grasping at straws here.
Gee, wouldn’t it be great if we could hold police officers accountable for things like this? If only there was a system of judgement and interpretation of the laws of a nation and when, how, and where they apply! It’s too bad that police officers exist as Judge, Jury, and Executioner and their decisions are absolute and unappealable, huh?
What are you even trying to argue? That laws are meaningless because our police and court systems aren’t perfect and infallible? Your argumentation has become utterly absurd.
Obviously if a police officer arrests you for unlawful possession of a restricted object which you were, in fact, carrying for a lawful reason, you contest the charges. If, once you object, the police insist on pressing charges, you contest them in a court of law. And if you suspect that you have been falsely arrested, if you suspect that the charges were levied against you for reasons such as racial descrimination, et cetera, you file suit as is your legal power to do so and the police must answer charges of their own.
Bullshit. There’s are insane. Then again, for a country that executed millions of it’s citizens a few generations ago, why doesn’t that surprise me?
I saw a thread on a Mosin-Nagant collectors forum from a Russian owner. In order to own a bolt action rifle from WWII they first need a shot gun license for 5 years. If they manage not to kill anyone they can get a rifle license. They put a pin at the very tip of the barrel, just barely stick out, which fucks with the accuracy, turning a gun that should shoot 1-2" groups at 100 yards into one that shoots 3-5" groups. They also drill a small divot into the chamber, so when the gun is fired the brass bulges and deforms, so the brass can’t be reused.
But hey - we got the NSA watching over us for our safety, right? So we may as well turn them all in.
Possession doesn’t infringe your rights.
What about tinkerers and makers who often solve problems on the go? Carry lots of electronics, with wires liable to be chewed off by use? (NO, the repair CANNOT wait until I get home to the “permitted set of tools”. I don’t want to live in a world where I cannot carry tools needed to get myself out of even minor annoyances. The hoodlums and criminals will carry blades anyway so why should I accept to not have one? Just because YOU and other cowards like you say so? Should I bow to the law and sacrifice the blade lock as some laws in some places want me to? No, I value not cutting my fingers by accidental closing the knife more than the law. And if I cannot buy a nonlockable blade, a drilled hole with a lock pin will do the job then. Not as quick to deploy but much safer to use.) The most The Law can achieve with me is redesigning the multitool, including the blade, into a concealable form, e.g. a belt clasp or part of a shoe heel.
I did an innumerable amount of little jobs with the pocket tools, from minor repairs to opening bags and boxes to stripping wires. (Yes, even opening a pack of sweets bought in a local deli, when the plastic proved tough to tear.) Many were on the job site, many at home, many others at various ad-hoc locations (incuding the street itself) to where I had to get by walking on a public street. I am known as the go-to guy with tools and improvisation skills on hand and I don’t intend giving that up Just Because. And no, I won’t have multiple tools in several places just so your little feelings won’t get hurt. Because I don’t intend to hurt you with the blade or anything else - unless you try to take it away from me.
Let me get this straight. According to you, requiring firearm operators:
- to be licensed
- to pass psychological and physical evaluations to ensure they are capable of safely operating the weapon
- to pass proficiency examinations proving they actually know what they are doing
- to periodically renew their licenses and prove their continued fitness for usage of firearms
… is insane.
Odd. We require the exact same things of our motorists, with the exception of the psychological evaluation, yet I seriously doubt you would label those requirements insane.
Presumably you believe it to be lunacy to regulate devices designed to kill people with the same strictness as regulating devices merely intended to move people and cargo from place to place?
You know, I was going to respond to further comments of yours, but at this point I’m struggling to find the value in doing so.
Your arguments have become demonstrably irrational. You have personally, unabashedly admitted to logical fallacies and then persisted in arguing them. You have been repeatedly and purposefully insulting, abusive, presumptuous, and closed minded in your disagreements with my views.
I am consequently taking a recess from this discussion.
No - I find most of those things to be unnecessary and would have little to no effect on gun crime.
What’s insane was modifying a historic 70 year old fire arm to decrease its accuracy and deform spent casings. You know, what I actually said.
Wow - that’s the pot calling the kettle black.
I know you think that’s what you said… but it’s not what you said.
I also know I said I’d take a recess, but this was so quick and painless an observation to make that I figured, why not?
My guns have infringed on NOBODY’S rights. I have harmed absolutely nobody. Yes, there is a statistical chance that I MIGHT use them to infringe on somebody else’s rights some day (not really, but let’s just pretend). When that day comes, I can face the punishment. Until then I have done nothing wrong.
I suppose that because I am equipped with male anatomy that MIGHT someday contribute to a rape, that I need to be castrated? Same logic.
Then work to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.
(( SNIP a bunch of inane stuff that compares gun ownership to owning slaves))
Never mind the fact that my guns have hurt nobody. Do you own a pool? Those kill people. Do you have a moral responsibility to dig it up or fill it with sand? Do you own a car? Those kill THOUSANDS every year. If it saves even one life, isn’t that life worth it to get rid of all cars?
For that matter, if we get rid of the 4th Amendment, we could save a lot more lives. Are you willing to give up that particular protection, even to save one life? How about to save 100? How many lives are required to be saved before you are willing to live in a state where the police can stop and search you at will?
Need I point out that the odds of being in a mass shooting are about the same as being struck by lightning? In fact, you have a much greater chance of winning $1,000,000 or more in the lottery than you do of being the victim of a mass shooting.
I bring it up because Australia seriously restricted gun ownership. Then, the #1 murder weapon was a knife, so they felt that they had to crack down on that too, making actions that SHOULD be legal into a gray zone where you have to prove that you are NOT breaking the law (guilty until you prove yourself innocent). That could happen here too.
As long as there is ANY murder, there will always be a #1 murder weapon that somebody feels the government ought to do something about. If guns and knives are banned, people will want ropes and rocks banned because those are still used in murders.
Then justify YOUR actions, where you want to restrict the actions of over 300 million Americans, just to falsely feel safer. Are your precious little feelings worth more than the freedoms of all Americans?
And taking away the liberties of others also requires justifications. If I concealed-carry a gun (which I don’t BTW, but I am not opposed to it). that does not harm you, and you will likely never even know, unless I draw it to stop a criminal from taking YOUR life.
In general, you can divide society into two broad groups:
-
Generally nice people. These are people who have no ill will towards anybody, and who desire to harm nobody. Approximately 99% of all people fall into this category. These are the ones who will generally OBEY the gun laws, yet are the ones who you do not have to worry about.
-
Criminals and psychopaths. These are ones who either break the law and do not care if they hurt anybody (criminals), or actively seek to hurt people (psychopaths). They are ones to will ignore the laws. Ban guns and they will either get them illegally, or use some other weapons (cars, knives, baseball bats, pressure cookers, etc.).
Passing all sorts of onerous laws will generally not make you any safer from the 1st groups since they pose no threat in the 1st place. It may slow down the 2nd group, but will not really stop them. The laws, however, will make it harder for the 1st group to stop the 2nd group.
And, once again back go GUN violence, as if people stabbed to death are somehow better off than ones shot to death. So, if all gun murders were completely eliminated, but the homicide rate doubled, I guess that you would be OK with that… If you want to talk about violence in general, that is fine, but it is foolish to focus one one specific tool.
Hey, if you banned all red cars, the rate of death from red cars would plummet. Sound like a good plan to make people safer from red cars?
So,if you did have a perfect economy and perfect mental health, and almost no murders ever happened, would you still want to ban guns?
And you are actually OK with these types of restrictions? Wow, some people have the bar set pretty low for personal freedom. So I have to carry a tool box all the time because I might need to use the screwdriver in my multi-tool to tighten the screw that keep on coming out of my glasses (true story)?
Have you been paying attention? There are a LOT of cases of police abuse on this very forum (and even some on this very day)! And even if the courts do eventually clear you, that takes a while. You would still be arrested before making it to a court room. Do you really want to bet your freedom on a gray area?
You are arguing that because somebody MIGHT do something bad with a freedom, that the freedom must be eliminated. That is absurd.
So, you are still arrested, have to spend hours or days in jail until you get bail, hire a lawyer (or bet on an overworked public defender), before you can finally clear your name. Yup, sounds like freedom to me. Sign me up.
Their laws are more stringent and bizarre than what you laid out. If you read past the first two sentences you would see where I laid out my specific example of what I found so insane. The fact you failed to grasp this context doesn’t surprise me.
Take a break. Please come back with better argument than “they are potentially dangerous and I don’t like them and don’t think people should have them.” Thus far your arguments have been weak sauce.
1 Like
Nope. Absolute lie. Without a license, you can feel free to buy a car and drive it all over your own property. No license, license plate, or insurance needed. If you own a bunch of acres, this is actually quite practical. You only need a license and all that stuff to operate a car on public roads.
Don’t believe me? Where are the license plates on NASCAR race cars? Ever seen a cop on a race track pulling a driver over for speeding? Why not? It is private property, so laws about public roads simply do not apply. I bet that race cars don’t even have comprehensive and collision insurance through Geico.
Similarly, if you want to carry a weapon concealed in public, you need to get a background check, take training classes, and even get fingerprinted.
Please get your facts straight…
Slippery slope may be a purely-logical fallacy, but it is not a legal one. Precedent absolutely carries weight when you’re talking about laws.
Also, humans are not logical beings, so objecting to a logical fallacy in the realm of human arguments is itself a fallacy, and I wish self-congratulatory nerds would stop referencing Wikipedia’s goddamned page on the subject every time a discussion about politics or social engineering comes up. Stop being a tiresome boor and go laugh at a kitten being distracted by a laser pointer — it’s so illogical!
when During tech new online the development everything is more modern.
What i find most interesting is that pulling this rifle’s trigger doesn’t directly fire the weapon. By pulling and holding the trigger you are giving the weapon permission to fire once the weapon is correctly oriented in reference to a predetermined target. Well come to visit Best Tablet Android Have Price Under $200
and Best tablet of Apple in 2014 with us
and Tech new online best phone from amazon.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
