This isn't a private message Matt, it's an open thread where anyone can participate if they so desire. If you don't like that you're always free to take all your marbles and go home.
The little guy with the mustache that ran Germany during WW2 felt the same way. So did Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong il, and Mao Tse Tung.
A quick google check shows that American Airlines, Delta and Frontier all have a 11 lb / 5 kg limit on ammunition. So the 5 kg limit must be the standard airline limit for ammunition. So Amtrak is indeed following the standard airline policies. Will make it easier when dealing with people checking guns in baggage because many of them are likely to be familiar with the packaging and weight restrictions.
Yea, it's an open forum. He posted a question in an open forum. I was simply inquiring as to the reasoning behind said question.
I'm not that worried about a lawful gun owner shooting a stranger like me, that's statistically unlikely. Unfortunately today's law abiding gun owner can become tomorrow's family killing maniac. Hard times can make otherwise good people do very bad things, and guns can turn a bad thing into a horrible tragedy in a matter of seconds.
I hope every American is someday free to experience the wonder of being shot by another American. I really don't care if it's over a cheating spouse or road rage or loss of a job, it's all equally patriotic to me.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else.
Ammunition is not really a problem in a fire as long as it is not in a container that will hold pressure and ammo boxes specifically do not.
In the National Opt out day thread, you were a bastion of freedom for all and a fearless defender of the Constitution. I guess that only applies to things that you agree with?
Yet you can't see the fact that since it's an open thread, he's allowed to ask questions like that?
Thanks for invoking Godwin's Law (Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about). This thread probably needed to be locked pretty quickly, anyway.
The decision was not Amtrak's. It was legislated into effect with last year's budget.
Although I'm not a fan of guns I do recognize that their possession and use are protected to some extent by the Constitution. For that reason I'd be happy to allow well regulated Militias to board with checked weapons as their various security focused duties require. Presumably the modern equivalent of these militias would be our various armed forces and police forces. I don't see "random gun fan" or "hunting party" as sufficiently regulated or protected by the Constitution.
His question didn't seem to be asked in good faith the way I was reading it. If you really think I was being too harsh then feel free to take it up with a moderator instead of wasting my time with this endless baiting you're so fond of.
I don't see that quote anywhere in this thread. Apparently you just conjured it up out of thin air as part of a straw man argument. My justification for increased gun control comes from the far fewer gun-related deaths seen in countries where guns are heavily regulated. There are some exceptions to this rule, and I'd be very interested in continued research aimed at discovering what influences result in these exceptions, but the tried and true method of reducing gun related violence and deaths comes from sharply increased regulation.
And the statistics to back this up say ? ? ? ? or are there any?
The courts disagree with your interpretation. I'm going to go ahead and put my faith in them rather than some random dude on the internet.
It's an open thread where anyone can participate if they so desire. If you don't like that you're always free to take all your marbles and go home
Try comparing violent crime and homicide (by any method, not just guns) rate and you'll discover that the facts lead you elsewhere. Are you any safer in a country where you're just as likely (if not more so) to get stabbed or beaten to death just because you're not going to get shot? I don't think so.
And here I thought the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as this: http://youtu.be/bCgCceg042w
You're looking for a statistic that says a lawful gun owner can quickly mow down his family after facing a mental breakdown? Considering that I read about this sort of thing all the time I guess I took it as obvious and uncontested. A family that is attacked with a fists or a knife would have a much better opportunity for survival than a family attacked with a gun. The first person hit or stabbed can alert the others to the danger. One person can defend against the attack while the others assist or flee or call for help. With a gun there's far less time for defending or running or calling for assistance. Seems pretty obvious to me but if you have information that contradicts this I'd be interested in taking a look. As for the second amendment I noticed you left out "well regulated." What we call "militias" today are barely regulated at all in states like mine.
Which courts? Today's right-leaning courts may indeed agree with you. Yesteryears left-leaning courts may have indeed agreed with me. There is no court in this country which is infallible and their views change with every new appointment and departure.
I'm curious where you're getting your information from. From what I've read US has one of the worst homicide rates among industrialized democracies. Countries that are generally lawless, are in the midst of civil war, or suffer from routine coups are far worse but why would I compare them with us? Surely we should expect more than what Zambia can provide? Among the countries that have fewer homicides they generally have far stricter gun control laws. Why wouldn't I be safer in a country where the weapons of choice are fists and knives? At least I'd have a chance of besting my opponent or holding them off long enough for someone else to escape. Against a gun-wielding maniac? Not so much.
