Pro-gun rocker Ted Nugent bans guns from Virginia concert

[hollodero]

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, absolutely.  This is true of all freedoms to some extent.  The right to free speech which we enjoy in the US and does not exist in the same fashion in Europe, is ripe for abuse.  The freedom of religion enables horrible people like the Westboro Baptists.  The freedom of assembly enables them to annoy and borderline harass people, and this is in no way restricted to them.

Yes, it is. We Europeans are probably more used to ask the question if granting the last inch of freedom is worth the consequences for the society the free individual still lives in. And sure, we do that with free speech.
(...although whenever that is brought up, I don't think this to be a clear black and white from the start. There's things you can't say in the US, you've your restrictions against the n-word or inciting violence as well).

With gun freedom - not worth the consequences. This is again me asking what makes sense and giving that more weight than upholding a principle of total individual freedom ("free speech" restrictions, for example, did not lead to any kind of "slippery slope"). I'm glad my neighbor probably doesn't have a gun, I value that higher than the bit of freedom lost by that.

And I'm fine with my neighbor having a gun, as long as he's proven to be sane and that he can use that thing. The crazy part for us about the US, again, is not so much people having guns, it's all kind of unstable and untrained people potentially having guns. Some kind of gun licence would sound so reasonable.

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except the vast majority of firearms related homicide are criminals killing other criminals.  This is, of course, no solace at all to the victims of gun related crime that aren't, themselves, criminals.  Again, it is a trade off.  I turn a very jaundiced eye towards any attempts to restrict the freedoms of law abiding adults, especially when such freedoms are enshrined in our country's founding document.

Banning cars would prevent traffic deaths. I'm aware that not advocating that ban doesn't mean one is unsympathetic to the victims, and I'd never accuse you of that.
I think even criminals shot dead are tragic incidents, also that the gun liberty is an incentive to act on shooting phantasies of all sorts. Statistics sure seem to affirm that view, so the trade off (the gun deaths) seems a bit high for an European, especially when we think the advantages of an armed populace to be quite virtual. Bluntly, I just don't see you taking a gun and marching to Washington. If you didn't do it after being asked to choose between Hillary and Trump as your new leader, you never will :)

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I must respectfully disagree.  I think the intent behind the 2A is just as, if not more, relevant now than when the Bill of Rights was written.  The government's ability to control or monitor every facet of a citizen's life is far more extensive now than in 1789.  I find it oddly contradictory that when the Patriot Act was passed many left leaning types, including myself, felt it was an overreach.  Many quoted Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  However, when it comes to gun rights that quote seems to fall out of favor.  I've seen gun control activists state, "If it saves just one life it is worth it".  Sorry, but no.

I know the quote, I don't think it's a particularly smart one, but I get the point. Then again, said overreach (and I sure thought it was one too) isn't solved with armed people. No one picked up his guns, yeah the people itself weren't even united on that one.
I see the amendment as the idea to extend the checks and balances principle it seems to be high on in general is expanded to government/people - people can keep the government in check by force. But is that still true? Given there's a third entity now, a standing army... and if people and government ever were in the crosshairs so badly that a civil war were looming, the army would take side and win anyway. This is why I said the armed people's militia is a virtual advantage to me, which wouldn't do much but increasing the death toll in case of a civil war (and people forming a militia to fight the government would be that, a civil war).