"Strict" Laws, Do They Effect Your Availability?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by MonkeySpot (6070 posts) -

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

#2 Posted by Vickman178 (1035 posts) -

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

MonkeySpot

If crazy people want to do something/get something they will do it regardless of the laws. Punishing the law abiding citizens with laws is just stupid. They're plenty of people who own automatic weapons legally and who use them safely.

There are plenty of laws on drugs but I still get pretty much anyone I want easily. Weed, coke, LSD, shrooms you name it. Its all still accesible.

#3 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18360 posts) -
Laws prevent people buying what they want, they never stop bad people buying things to use in an illegal/bad way. Thats why gun laws are pointless. Criminals will always get guns.
#4 Posted by ristactionjakso (5713 posts) -

Here's my 2 cents on the whole guns ban thing.

No matter how illegal it is to have something, people will still find a way to get it. I mean, look at drug addicts. They can make meth, obtain herion, and other mind altering substances without any problems.

Look at sawed off shtoguns. Just go down to the store, buy a double barreled shotgun, saw off the barrel and viola! You now have an illegal weapon.

Many people can alter a weapon to be automatic if they wish to do so too. Just because legal stores cannot sell automatic guns, doesn't mean people don't know how to make them automatic.

No matter how much politicians politicise the subject, no matter how "strict" laws are against something, no matter what, people will do what they want.

We are targeting the wrong thing here. Guns do kill people, if they are used in that fashion. But the second admendment allows the ownage of firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and corruption, not hunting deer. Politicians should be the last people we listen to when it comes to banning guns.

The targets of the shootings and what not should be the people who use the guns wrongly, not guns themselves. I mean what's stopping a resturaunt chef from going out and killing 5-6 people with dual sharp azz carving knives? Timothy McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb to kill his victims.....there are many ways to kill people, not just guns.

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

#5 Posted by whipassmt (13995 posts) -

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

MonkeySpot

Actually a lot of laws do expire after a certain time. For example the Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire in 2010 (Congress and Obama extended them for two years in 2010, Obama agreed to do so in exchange for Republicans agreeing to reduce the payroll tax for two years). And I think you are mostly right about automatic weapons not being used for hunting, unless someone is hunting very large game. I doubt anyone hunts deer with an Automatic weapon since all those bullets would spoil the meat (and risk hitting other hunters). Hunters usually try to kill animals quickly and without much pain (which is perhaps why many hunters nowadays are using crossbows or arrows rather than guns, or maybe they feel more skilled/manly doing so).

#6 Posted by whipassmt (13995 posts) -

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

ristactionjakso

Well that's quite different than gun control there (the rest of your post does have good points). Icy roads are usually icy due to nature, not to any actions of man (i.e. the roads are icy because of precipitation freezing up, people aren't going out and icing up the roads).

And of course we shouldn't ban ice since ice is really frozen water and water is something necessary for life.

#7 Posted by guynamedbilly (12957 posts) -
No, you aren't right. Some laws may be written only as a compromise for a deal in that moment, and they have a sunset clause so people can either make a new deal or reevaluate if the law has been working. To that last point, I believe all laws should have to be renewed after a seperate government body evaluates their success. That way we could eliminate a lot of needless bureaucracy. That's a point for another topic I guess. As for importing disallowed stuff, I've never desired anything that was banned, so I've never tried.
#8 Posted by tumbIew33d (398 posts) -
Laws are obstacles, sure, but if someone is hellbent on obtaining something illegal, they will often find a way. That applies to everything from contraband cigars to radioactive material. I guess prohibitions weed out a lot of cases where people aren't that determined of resourceful, though. I guess they very often cut out "whim" access.
#9 Posted by Devil-Itachi (4370 posts) -

Why do people think guns will be just as easy to obtain just because drugs are? This is incredibly stupid when drugs are so easy to make in comparison, it's not the same as stealing some guns that fall off a truck every once in awhile. Also these deranged people that do these mass shootings are usually more socially inept which would make the likely hood of them having connections to get a gun off the black market that much more unlikely to happen.

#10 Posted by ristactionjakso (5713 posts) -

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

whipassmt

Well that's quite different than gun control there (the rest of your post does have good points). Icy roads are usually icy due to nature, not to any actions of man (i.e. the roads are icy because of precipitation freezing up, people aren't going out and icing up the roads).

And of course we shouldn't ban ice since ice is really frozen water and water is something necessary for life.

Natural or not, icy roads happen, and psychopaths killing people happens too. It's a good comparison if you think about it that way. They both tend to happen whether we want it to or not. :)

#11 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Why do people think guns will be just as easy to obtain just because drugs are? This is incredibly stupid when drugs are so easy to make in comparison, it's not the same as stealing some guns that fall off a truck every once in awhile. Also these deranged people that do these mass shootings are usually more socially inept which would make the likely hood of them having connections to get a gun off the black market that much more unlikely to happen.

Devil-Itachi
Guns and ammunition can be easy to manufacture.