That doesn't even look remotely generic and has little pertinence to the discussion. "Right to privacy" doesn't mean what you think it means.

ikes m2b is now in law school so he's really confident that he's going to outsmart you on this one. he just doesn't know how yet.

What's there to outsmart him on? He clearly has no clue what he's talking about.

Yes, we should all just trust constitutional scholar Ron Paul's views without question.

Life is a lot more complex than your interpretation allows. But to go into detail would require another thread.

A good demonstration of where your thinking is wrong is you undoubtedly would consider Norway to have soft punishments, in fact they have some of the softest punishments on the planet, but they have an extremely low stat of repeat offences and generally low crime rates.

The use of prison as a punishment is in the completely wrong direction. Use of prisons as a punishment doesnt work and rehabilitation is the correct direction and with that you will have low prison terms including lower percentages of people sent to prison.

It is also worth noting that trading murder stats for non-deadly crime increases is awesome. Where is the dotted line to sign?

imo anykind of national real time tracking database is a non starter, for political and technical issues.

no you aren't, your arguments may sound decent to people who don't know about the issue because you speak in complete sentences and don't go full taso but i don't understand your motivation. you've taken the time to write 100s? of posts in this thread but won't take the time to have more than a cursory understanding.

The prison industrial complex though.

idk if this has already been brouught up, but RFID is not real-time position tracking system.

Having said that, being of two or three minds on this subject, I also, up to a point, embrace the statement made by Mr. La Pierre and the proposed policies and find somewhat acceptable all the side effects those proposals will have if implemented. The reason for that is that it strikes me they do more good than harm, given all the facts under consideration.

It's easy to parody the NRA as being out of touch but given the average intelligence of the American voter, their proposals are not too far out of tune with the average conservative voter, it seems to me.

Lol your argument is attempting to argue with something that our government has already decided. Frankly, I don't really give a flying **** about the argument you're attempting to make. The law, as it stands, enshrines individual gun ownership in the constitution. Deal with it.

Thanks trolly. Wookie already came up with this brilliant comment, but m2b said something along the lines of 'or something that allows us to track where people are''

I was assuming Suzzer, Ikes and M2B were talking about some future mass database. If they are talking about RFID then lol

It really is amazing how often the pro gun argument comes down to "it says so on the paper"

Compelling stuff guys.

thats not my argument. i know what the supreme court has ruled.

i just dont understand why you are wasting your time arguing so condescendingly and authoritatively about a topic you have very little understanding of beyond a semantics argument that scalia made in heller.

Believe it or not, the argument you're trying to make has been done here before and I'm over it. You keep jumping in the remind me that other people think the 2A means something other than the way we use it now. Thanks, we get it, but it doesn't matter even a little.

So the gun nuts want a database of all the nuts and to ban Call of Duty?

COD? From my cold, dead. hands!

im not really trying to make any argument, just think its weird that youd spend so much time arguing about a topic you don't really know what you're talking about is all.

I'm fine with either.

Use your words and google. The supreme court has held that some weapons can be regulated, so the analogy is not even needed. This forum has the legal and political sophistication of an intro to poly sci class at a community college.

Ikes, I could see how you would interpret the second bold portion as saying I wanted real time tracking.

Here I tried to clarify that active tracking would not be necessary to achieve the type of deterrence I was thinking about. Even still, private companies could install tracking devices on the guns they sell and there would be no constitutional crisis.

I was originally envisioning individual company databases that would keep track of when/where their guns were in public places. I literally put like five minutes thought into this, I was just trying to illustrate that gun manufacturers have a lot more flexibility in coming up with possible solutions to the gun violence problem than the government, hence they should be incentivized to get in the game. I really don't know much about the technology other than very basic stuff. However, Ikes keyed into my hypo, decided to only read half of it, and then decided to go all condescending constitutional lawyer/scholar on it, so I figured I'd roll with it just to get some laughs out of Ike's extensive legal knowledge.

lol, ikes. Your posts from the beginning showed that you didn't take time to read what I wrote. Yet you jumped to all sorts of conclusions and assume that this whole regime would be unconstitutional based off some vague notion of what you thought I said. You did provide some entertaining moments, however. "Generic right to privacy" "2A rights are fundamentally guaranteed by the constitution" lol.

I have a ccw but have never actually used it unless you count having a gun sitting in my front seat once to take it target shooting. I also don't own any guns.

Both.
OK, so continuing on... just like prisons, in every other place in the world other considerations need to be considered to have an informed opinion if a weapons quarantine policy would (or would not) be net safety positive comparatively to a comparable non-weapons quarantine policy.

We logically need to to consider what kinda place it is in general (jail, school or college campus, factory, mall, church, on a plane, etc), consider what are the candidate policies (both quarantine and non-quarantine)... and also figure out if there is any particular differences unique to this place (my local bar, Newtown Elementary, etc).

In other words, just saying "ZOMG WEAPONS FREE KILLING ZONE ZOMG", as a stand alone statement, is simply a flat-out ******ed non-argument.

So... let's try to put this understanding in action. Here are some possible weapons policies that we can consider. Here is a list I think sums up the major policy differences...

1. No WMD.
2. No arming with certain other kinds of weapons (however designated)
3. No armed children, or non-sober adults.
4. No armed crazy folks (however determined).
5. No armed customers/students.
6. No armed non-security employees.
7. No armed security employees.
8. No armed and un-licensed customers/students
9. No armed and un-licensed non-security employees

Anyone still care?

Re: the GPS solution

I can think about five different reasons why this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. I can't believe it was even mentioned more than once.

Why is it the dumbest thing?