America and Guns,

[Totovader]

The militia of the Constitution operates under the rules set by Congress, has officers chosen by the states and takes orders from the President when called to national service. We call it the National Guard.

The militias of the state are able to receive some limited orders and limited supplies from the Commander in Chief, but that is not the National Guard, and it's most certainly not what the 2nd Amendment was referring to when it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It means the exact opposite of the National Guard. The militias of the state specifically cannot be called to become Federal entities.

 

[BStrong]

Prior to legislation we need to increase the rift between the gun lobby and the rest of us. That however, will be generational. We need to get to a point where gun ownership and gun advocacy become embarrassing. Highlighting stories of dumb gun owners and gotcha sound bite politics of pro gunners should be the cornerstones of Bloomburg's strategy.

My dream is that one day, the kids of every gun owner in America will roll their eyes and say "dad, please don't talk about your guns; everyone will think we're nut cases".

The above is exactly why gun owners as a group will fight tooth and nail down to the last dollar and last vote against any gun control legislation, even legislation that might do some go in violence reduction.

Nobody needs to do a deep google to find anti-gun posters marginalizing gun owners with the assertion that "nobody wants to take away your guns," but that is demonstrably not the case, especially here in California - as far back as 81-82 there was a ballot measure (Prop. 15) that would have initiated a DC type ban on handguns. The measure was predicted to win in a landslide, lost 2-1 in the actual voting and in only two of the 58 California counties did the measure get majority votes- San Francisco and Marin.

I can't help but noting that the "marginalize and stigmatize" tactic is also the cornerstone of anti-immigrant rhetoric and anti-gay marriage rhetoric, and goes back to the gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann on the AW question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[11][12]"

Let's use confusion and lack of knowledge to get where we want to be - that doesn't sound like the bedrock of a legit position to me.

I should also note that what JS considers to be a "new" topic in 1988 had in fact been around in civilian hands in the U.S. since 1958 OR '59 with the importation of the first FN FAL G series rifles.

 

[Distracted1]

Regulated, of course, refers to the formation of state militias and not the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms... how did they put it... shall not be infringed.

Shall not. Pretty strong.

ETA: And as a point of fact, "regulated" does not mean regulated by the government in this context. It means well regulated: practiced, strong, ready.

Pretty strong language indeed. It leads to some pretty outrageous conclusions as well.

For instance, a paranoid/schizophrenic is still one of the people, and a flamethrower is definitely an arm. The Second Amendment language assures us that there is no legal way to keep the two separated.

It is precisely because it is so strongly worded that it is pointless. It cannot bend- therefore it must break. It forces it's supporters into defending a position that the insane are legally guaranteed access to WMD's, or that it has no meaning at all.

More clearly put, once one agrees that ANY restriction on arms is possible under the constitution ( background checks, waiting periods, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, etc..), one cannot go back and use the argument that a further restriction is unconstitutional because of the 2nd. It is all or nothing when interpreted that way.

 

[Old man]

Pretty strong language indeed. It leads to some pretty outrageous conclusions as well.

For instance, a paranoid/schizophrenic is still one of the people, and a flamethrower is definitely an arm. The Second Amendment language assures us that there is no legal way to keep the two separated.

No.

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.

Fugitives from justice.

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
Illegal aliens.

Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.

Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.

Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.

Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2004/citizen`s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law.aspx

 

[Totovader]

Pretty strong language indeed. It leads to some pretty outrageous conclusions as well.

For instance, a paranoid/schizophrenic is still one of the people, and a flamethrower is definitely an arm. The Second Amendment language assures us that there is no legal way to keep the two separated.

It is precisely because it is so strongly worded that it is pointless. It cannot bend- therefore it must break. It forces it's supporters into defending a position that the insane are legally guaranteed access to WMD's, or that it has no meaning at all.

More clearly put, once one agrees that ANY restriction on arms is possible under the constitution ( background checks, waiting periods, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, etc..), one cannot go back and use the argument that a further restriction is unconstitutional because of the 2nd. It is all or nothing when interpreted that way.

That's the way it was intended- and to hold a logically consistent argument you have to hold that the right shall not be infringed. You can invent the most vile person and say that they should not morally own a gun. We can call people paranoid/schizophrenics and argue that their rights should be taken away... but the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the mob- and the 5th and 14th exist because we have a tendency to forget that due process is a right of all peoples- even and especially the weak.

Background checks are an enticing argument: who would be for giving guns to lunatics! But it completely circumvents the rights of the individual: if it can be proven that someone is that much of a danger, why do we only stop them from getting a gun? Seems like that's more about the gun than it is the safety of the public at large.

We have become so seduced by this idea that we can predict who will eventually want to murder people that we neglect to review the facts. Stated quite simply: background checks do not work. The fact that we continue to push for it is an outrageous conclusion and one that is not logically consistent. For most people that's perfectly acceptable, but for me- I cannot hold contradictory ideas and claim to be rational at the same time- and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't be able to consider myself someone who is a skeptic- someone who engages in critical thinking- and someone who is interested in science and truth.

 

[marplots]

(some snipped)

We have become so seduced by this idea that we can predict who will eventually want to murder people that we neglect to review the facts. Stated quite simply: background checks do not work. The fact that we continue to push for it is an outrageous conclusion and one that is not logically consistent. For most people that's perfectly acceptable, but for me- I cannot hold contradictory ideas and claim to be rational at the same time- and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't be able to consider myself someone who is a skeptic- someone who engages in critical thinking- and someone who is interested in science and truth.

Completely agree. In fact, it's the unpredictability you cite that leads to one conclusion - the only way to prevent gun violence is to eliminate guns. Background checks do not work and will never filter out those who eventually misuse their weapon.

I applaud your critical thinking skills.

 

[Totovader]

Completely agree. In fact, it's the unpredictability you cite that leads to one conclusion - the only way to prevent gun violence is to eliminate guns. Background checks do not work and will never filter out those who eventually misuse their weapon.

I applaud your critical thinking skills.

All your sarcasm aside, you cannot logically hold that rights are absolute and then say that rights should be taken away because you deem them to be too dangerous- those are logically inconsistent arguments.

For example, using your argument, I could say that speech is dangerous. It leads to arguments and violence- and even the destruction of governments. It can be proven to be undesirable in many, many circumstances. Therefore, the only way to prevent violence is to eliminate free speech.

And, going back to my earlier statement about the evidence- which you so easily snipped out: we know that gun control doesn't work. Eliminating guns is not a viable solution to gun violence. Plus, we can also assume you aren't really talking about eliminating all guns, but rather putting them in the hands of a few elite. I mean, I'm making an assumption that you wouldn't allow that level of contradiction to exist in your argument- but maybe I'm wrong... Anyway, only allowing the government to have guns... kinda defeats the purpose of a government by the people, and also has been shown to be a really really really dumb idea. Just sayin...

 

[marplots]

All your sarcasm aside, you cannot logically hold that rights are absolute and then say that rights should be taken away because you deem them to be too dangerous- those are logically inconsistent arguments.

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by absolute, I don't hold "rights" as anything other than a societal convention. The US Constitution isn't holy scripture, it's some ideas some guys had that they wrote down and voted on. The same process can be used to modify it.

For example, using your argument, I could say that speech is dangerous. It leads to arguments and violence- and even the destruction of governments. It can be proven to be undesirable in many, many circumstances. Therefore, the only way to prevent violence that comes from free speech is to eliminate free speech.

I inserted a phrase to correct your logic.

And, going back to my earlier statement about the evidence- which you so easily snipped out: we know that gun control doesn't work. Eliminating guns is not a viable solution to gun violence.

The highlited phrase and the underlined phrase are saying two different things. One doesn't mean the same as the other. For example, we absolutely know that eliminating guns also eliminates gun violence. How? Two ways. The first is as a logical consequence, but we also have an experiment in play. Guns are forbidden in prisons. There is no gun violence in prisons. So, yes, no gun violence follows from no guns. The best you cold probably support is that very weak gun control doesn't work. But then I'd say it wasn't gun control at all, since "control" kinda implies something that actually controls.

But then you switch to "viable solution" instead. This, of course, is a matter of opinion - what would we accept? That's an open question and the answer changes over time. Certainly there are things we accept now (restrictions on our freedoms) that we didn't in the past - for example environmental regulations. There are also areas where we've become more permissible. The landscape here isn't fixed.

Plus, we can also assume you aren't really talking about eliminating all guns, but rather putting them in the hands of a few elite. I mean, I'm making an assumption that you wouldn't allow that level of contradiction to exist in your argument- but maybe I'm wrong... Anyway, only allowing the government to have guns... kinda defeats the purpose of a government by the people, and also has been shown to be a really really really dumb idea. Just sayin...

I think we part ways here if you imagine the government is somehow a separate entity from "the people." Abraham Lincoln's quote was: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Like Soylent Green, it's made of people and isn't a competitor. What it is, and all the restrictions placed on it, is a job description. There's no particular reason you need to do the job yourself. If you want a gun to prevent law breaking, become a policeman. If you want a gun to protect your country, join the army.

This idea of becoming a government of one and sovereign by dint of firearm has a name - it's called anarchy.

 

[Totovader]

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by absolute, I don't hold "rights" as anything other than a societal convention. The US Constitution isn't holy scripture, it's some ideas some guys had that they wrote down and voted on. The same process can be used to modify it.

I never said the US Constitution was holy scripture, it's also not where rights come from, as a point of fact.

If rights are nothing more than a "societal convention" (which is a contradiction in terms), then what is the purpose of rights? If they can be taken away by the mob at a whim, then surely you would have to conclude that things such as internment camps and slavery are morally justified by the mob? If not, please clarify.

I inserted a phrase to correct your logic.

Which did nothing to advance your argument.

The highlited phrase and the underlined phrase are saying two different things. One doesn't mean the same as the other. For example, we absolutely know that eliminating guns also eliminates gun violence. How? Two ways. The first is as a logical consequence, but we also have an experiment in play. Guns are forbidden in prisons. There is no gun violence in prisons. So, yes, no gun violence follows from no guns.

Methinks you have tipped your hat a bit too much... Prison is exactly what we are trying to avoid... and let's not forget, it's only the prisoners that don't have guns.

But this is a great idea: the path to a free society is absolute tyranny encapsulated by locking everyone up in a prison. You go first.

The best you cold probably support is that very weak gun control doesn't work. But then I'd say it wasn't gun control at all, since "control" kinda implies something that actually controls.

This is a no true scotsman's argument: anything that doesn't work is "very weak" gun control and only needs more control, but if what you were saying is true, you should be able to provide some sort of logical argument. Instead, you come up with PRISON as your finest example of the completeness of gun control. Astonishing.

But then you switch to "viable solution" instead. This, of course, is a matter of opinion - what would we accept? That's an open question and the answer changes over time. Certainly there are things we accept now (restrictions on our freedoms) that we didn't in the past - for example environmental regulations. There are also areas where we've become more permissible. The landscape here isn't fixed.

Viable isn't a matter of opinion. Gun control doesn't work. We have plenty of examples and I know you're already aware of them because you've been involved in the debates.

I think we part ways here if you imagine the government is somehow a separate entity from "the people." Abraham Lincoln's quote was: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Like Soylent Green, it's made of people and isn't a competitor. What it is, and all the restrictions placed on it, is a job description. There's no particular reason you need to do the job yourself. If you want a gun to prevent law breaking, become a policeman. If you want a gun to protect your country, join the army.

And if you want a gun to protect your person, family, and property... buy a gun.

I hate to bring this up, but your idea isn't new:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler

This idea of becoming a government of one and sovereign by dint of firearm has a name - it's called anarchy.

And that argument has a name as well, it's called a slippery slope. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not proposing anarchy. The right of self defense stems that tide.

You didn't address my attempt to define what control meant, but based on your mind-boggling prison example, I am left to conclude that you do mean to put guns in the hands of a few- not the actual elimination of guns. As your prison example demonstrates, this is the exact opposite of a free society.

But let's pretend for a moment that you had a magic wand and could eliminate all guns from existence and the configuration of guns could never be completed again- gun powder ceased and is no longer a chemical possibility. Your dream has come true: no more gun violence.

And what do we have instead? Rule by brutes, whoever has the most muscle, the most rocks, or the strongest punch. This is the matter of history that I think you have ignored: guns are what have changed us into a polite society able to trade without coercion and able to be free. That understanding came from the enlightenment and it's precisely what the Founders put into the Constitution.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
--Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

 

[marplots]

I never said the US Constitution was holy scripture, it's also not where rights come from, as a point of fact.

If rights are nothing more than a "societal convention" (which is a contradiction in terms), then what is the purpose of rights? If they can be taken away by the mob at a whim, then surely you would have to conclude that things such as internment camps and slavery are morally justified by the mob? If not, please clarify.

There's a lot to unpack there. First, why is "societal convention" a contradiction in terms? Next, you ask, "What is the purpose of rights?" But rights have no purpose, save making a statement about what we think should bind us together and restrict our behaviors.

I don't see the link between rights taken away by a mob on a whim and moral justification. Certainly a mob could lynch you, so it's quite possible to have your rights taken away by a mob. But morality is a different subject altogether. I should point out that at one time, slave owners had the right to beat their slaves, on exactly the same basis as any right you might like today - the society at that time treated slaves as property and embodied in the concept of ownership was the right to complete control, even to the point of destruction.

The fact that we no longer have the right to beat our slaves (or have slaves in the first place) should illustrate for you that these things aren't fixed. The right to keep and bear arms can (and should) be modified or struck altogether.

Methinks you have tipped your hat a bit too much... Prison is exactly what we are trying to avoid... and let's not forget, it's only the prisoners that don't have guns.

But this is a great idea: the path to a free society is absolute tyranny encapsulated by locking everyone up in a prison. You go first.

So you agree that logically it can be done and in practice has been done? Whether you think the price is worth the product is beside the point - you should at least admit the possibility.

This is a no true scotsman's argument: anything that doesn't work is "very weak" gun control and only needs more control, but if what you were saying is true, you should be able to provide some sort of logical argument. Instead, you come up with PRISON as your finest example of the completeness of gun control. Astonishing.

Do you agree that there are no guns and no gun violence in prisons? Do you further agree that guns are highly controlled in prison? It seems we have at least one Scotsman, if not an appealing one.

I brought up prisons, not as a plan, but to show you a real-world example of very strict gun control and the lack of gun violence. You may very well say that prisons are horrible and we wouldn't want to sacrifice our freedoms just to get rid of guns, but you should at least admit that some kind of gun control accomplishes the objective of eliminating gun violence.

Viable isn't a matter of opinion. Gun control doesn't work. We have plenty of examples and I know you're already aware of them because you've been involved in the debates.

I hate to bring this up, but your idea isn't new:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler

Did it work? Were they able to reduce gun violence? I am unfamiliar with the results of the policy.

And that argument has a name as well, it's called a slippery slope. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not proposing anarchy. The right of self defense stems that tide.

But you are not giving up your right to self defense. You just can't use a gun to do it. Certainly a creative mind could come up with other possibilities?

You didn't address my attempt to define what control meant, but based on your mind-boggling prison example, I am left to conclude that you do mean to put guns in the hands of a few- not the actual elimination of guns. As your prison example demonstrates, this is the exact opposite of a free society.

Why? We accept limits on our behaviors all the time. We do it because we think the result is worth the restriction. If you find the prison example of strict gun control that works repellant, there are others. I don't think you could manage to get a gun on a commercial airliner. Does this mean that we don't have a free society, or does it just mean we accept some restrictions on our freedoms, and freely do so?

But let's pretend for a moment that you had a magic wand and could eliminate all guns from existence and the configuration of guns could never be completed again- gun powder ceased and is no longer a chemical possibility. Your dream has come true: no more gun violence.

And what do we have instead? Rule by brutes, whoever has the most muscle, the most rocks, or the strongest punch.
That understanding came from the enlightenment and it's precisely what the Founders put into the Constitution.

You haven't changed anything by putting guns in the hands of the weak and making them strong. You've merely empowered people who couldn't be violent by giving them a handy means to be violent. Furthermore, it's quite a slur on the physically dominant to paint them as inherently more violent than anyone else.

This bit is particularly egregious: "This is the matter of history that I think you have ignored: guns are what have changed us into a polite society able to trade without coercion and able to be free."

But instead of disputing it, how about we just agree that because we are now a polite society, we can set the guns aside?

 

[WildCat]

Prior to legislation we need to increase the rift between the gun lobby and the rest of us. That however, will be generational. We need to get to a point where gun ownership and gun advocacy become embarrassing. Highlighting stories of dumb gun owners and gotcha sound bite politics of pro gunners should be the cornerstones of Bloomburg's strategy.

My dream is that one day, the kids of every gun owner in America will roll their eyes and say "dad, please don't talk about your guns; everyone will think we're nut cases".

It's refreshing to see you admit you have no rational or logical argument for banning guns, and instead are using smear tactics and appeals to emotion.

I don't think people are as foolish as you think they are, but I guess you can hang your hat on the slim chance you will be able to fool most of the people all of the time.

 

[WildCat]

And it's telling that even Bloomberg's well-funded astroturf organization could only muster a few hundred people to march in a metropolitan area of 20 million. 0.005%!

Barely more people than 9/11 truthers were able to muster.

 

[Dcdrac]

Who is saying ban guns, there is a move to regulate them better than they currently are.

 

[WildCat]

This illustrates the great strides in public attitudes towards guns in the last quarter century:

Mods - hot linked per explicit permission from site.

 

[elbe]

Who is saying ban guns, there is a move to regulate them better than they currently are.

Both sides are overly prone to using emotional arguments.

 

[Totovader]

There's a lot to unpack there. First, why is "societal convention" a contradiction in terms?

Rights as a societal convention is a contradiction in terms because there is no such thing as a society: a society is simply an arbitrary number of individuals. The reason this is important is because when you try to maintain this floating abstraction and then define the purpose of rights, you are left with this:

Next, you ask, "What is the purpose of rights?" But rights have no purpose, save making a statement about what we think should bind us together and restrict our behaviors.

To bind us together and restrict our behaviors? The right to free speech... what behavior is that restricting? How is it binding us together?

When you assume that rights come from the mob and restrict behavior you are left with an odd argument: that rights do not exist to sanction a freedom of action, but rather to control, manipulate, and enslave people. Which... makes them not rights at all, but commandments. And much like the 10 Commandments, they come from nothing as an attempt to castrate the free mind.

Instead, consider that your definition of rights is actually the definition of government: to restrict behavior and bind us together (in chains). Rights are the counter to that- to restrict the government.

I don't see the link between rights taken away by a mob on a whim and moral justification. Certainly a mob could lynch you, so it's quite possible to have your rights taken away by a mob.

That's not rights being taken away, that's murder. While murder is the violation of a particular individuals right, you aren't talking about a specific individual: you are talking about all rights. To apply your analogy more correctly, it would be that the mob is legally and morally justified in killing you, because they are the mob that says so the loudest.

But morality is a different subject altogether. I should point out that at one time, slave owners had the right to beat their slaves, on exactly the same basis as any right you might like today - the society at that time treated slaves as property and embodied in the concept of ownership was the right to complete control, even to the point of destruction.

You're ignoring that this is your definition of rights- one that I have already shown is logically inconsistent. In a proper, logically consistent definition of rights, it is morally wrong to own another person (a violation of their rights), to beat them (a violation of their rights), or to treat them as property (a violation of their rights). Under your definition, however, the society deemed all of those things as "not rights" and therefore was morally justified under your circular reasoning.

The fact that we no longer have the right to beat our slaves (or have slaves in the first place) should illustrate for you that these things aren't fixed. The right to keep and bear arms can (and should) be modified or struck altogether.

Actually, it should demonstrate to you that these things are fixed, ie absolute. Otherwise you're left with the contradiction that the mob would be morally justified in taking those rights away on a whim and making slavery legal again.

So you agree that logically it can be done and in practice has been done? Whether you think the price is worth the product is beside the point - you should at least admit the possibility.

Actually, it is exactly the point: if you want to disarm society you have to take away their rights and lock them in prisons. All under the guise of their own safety (but really for the sake satisfying the bloodlust of control).

At the heart of this argument is a glaring contradiction: you do not trust individuals, unless they wear a uniform. You neglect to remember that those who wear a uniform are individuals too- they are prone to the same errors, corruption, and evil that you purport to be against. The exception being, when you put a uniform on them, you sanction those acts and give them the power and you give them a gun to commit their acts. This is why prison rape is a significant problem and why sexual assaults in prison are committed by guards almost as much as by fellow inmates.

Do you agree that there are no guns and no gun violence in prisons? Do you further agree that guns are highly controlled in prison? It seems we have at least one Scotsman, if not an appealing one.

I brought up prisons, not as a plan, but to show you a real-world example of very strict gun control and the lack of gun violence. You may very well say that prisons are horrible and we wouldn't want to sacrifice our freedoms just to get rid of guns, but you should at least admit that some kind of gun control accomplishes the objective of eliminating gun violence.

It also shows the natural conclusion of your argument.

Did it work? Were they able to reduce gun violence? I am unfamiliar with the results of the policy.

It was... extremely successful.

But you are not giving up your right to self defense. You just can't use a gun to do it. Certainly a creative mind could come up with other possibilities?

Ever heard of the idiom: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" Any thoughts on why that phrase exists? A creative mind did come up with a way to defend ones self- actually it was several creative minds and it's been perfected over the years. It's been used to destroy dictators, protect the innocent, and keep the peace... it's called a gun.

Why? We accept limits on our behaviors all the time. We do it because we think the result is worth the restriction.

You aren't talking about limiting behaviors, you're talking about eliminating rights. Your euphemism not withstanding, your examples below are "weak" by your definition and the prison example stands loud and clear as what the opposite of a free society looks like.

If you find the prison example of strict gun control that works repellant, there are others. I don't think you could manage to get a gun on a commercial airliner. Does this mean that we don't have a free society, or does it just mean we accept some restrictions on our freedoms, and freely do so?

Here's the great thing about rights- under a logically consistent definition: the do not contradict each other. If a commercial airliner said "we don't want guns on our planes" they are free to do so. Just like many bars and restaurants have invited armed robbers to come into their stores unhindered by law abiding citizens carrying guns. My right to protect myself is in no way interrupted by their property rights (because I am a volitional human being- I choose not to go to those businesses). Nobody's rights are violated- nobody is harmed... well, except perhaps the Jack in the Box, but that's a consequence of their actions.

Now, I know that the airlines have no choice- my point is that we can respect the rights of individuals and still exist peacefully armed.

And as a counter to your argument: that's not rights being taken away.

You haven't changed anything by putting guns in the hands of the weak and making them strong.

ARE
YOU
KIDDING
ME

You've merely empowered people who couldn't be violent by giving them a handy means to be violent.

Prove it.

Furthermore, it's quite a slur on the physically dominant to paint them as inherently more violent than anyone else.

Not even close to what I said.

This bit is particularly egregious: "This is the matter of history that I think you have ignored: guns are what have changed us into a polite society able to trade without coercion and able to be free."

But instead of disputing it, how about we just agree that because we are now a polite society, we can set the guns aside?

Because criminals and governments are not polite. But I repeat myself.

 

[Cleon]

This illustrates the great strides in public attitudes towards guns in the last quarter century:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif[/qimg]

Mods - hot linked per explicit permission from site.

Texas was a no-issue state? Texas?

 

[Distracted1]

That's the way it was intended- and to hold a logically consistent argument you have to hold that the right shall not be infringed. You can invent the most vile person and say that they should not morally own a gun. We can call people paranoid/schizophrenics and argue that their rights should be taken away... but the Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the mob- and the 5th and 14th exist because we have a tendency to forget that due process is a right of all peoples- even and especially the weak.

Background checks are an enticing argument: who would be for giving guns to lunatics! But it completely circumvents the rights of the individual: if it can be proven that someone is that much of a danger, why do we only stop them from getting a gun? Seems like that's more about the gun than it is the safety of the public at large.

We have become so seduced by this idea that we can predict who will eventually want to murder people that we neglect to review the facts. Stated quite simply: background checks do not work. The fact that we continue to push for it is an outrageous conclusion and one that is not logically consistent. For most people that's perfectly acceptable, but for me- I cannot hold contradictory ideas and claim to be rational at the same time- and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't be able to consider myself someone who is a skeptic- someone who engages in critical thinking- and someone who is interested in science and truth.

Are you agreeing that a literal reading of the 2nd. allows any person to bear any armament any where at any time?

Do you further agree that acceptance of any infringement upon the above situation is a violation of the 2nd. ?
And that any argument that allows some infringement upon the above situation (while perhaps to a lesser extent than other arguments) , then returns to the 2nd. as a legal basis is logically inconsistent?

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you agreeing that a literal reading of the 2nd. allows any person to bear any armament any where at any time?

No, that's not correct. The intent is to cover arms which a militia member might need to store at home, practice with at home, and have at the ready in case he were to be called into service at a moment's notice. A rifle, its accessories, and the ammunition which go with it fit this definition, and you can see examples of this in other countries, where members of the reserve keep their rifles at home, e.g. Israel and Switzerland, but where they don't keep heavy weapons.

At the most, only weapons which can be carried and effectively used by a single person are protected by the 2nd Amendment. But I think there are valid arguments for the exclusion of flamethrowers, RPGs and hand grenades. Those are not quite the kinds of things which every soldier practices using frequently.

Furthermore, in other writings, the founders made it clear that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the civilian population was not defenseless, and that they thought possession of firearms would be a sufficient deterrent, even against government tyranny, as long as the people acted collectively. I think that's probably right.

 

[Totovader]

Are you agreeing that a literal reading of the 2nd. allows any person to bear any armament any where at any time?

Do you further agree that acceptance of any infringement upon the above situation is a violation of the 2nd. ?
And that any argument that allows some infringement upon the above situation (while perhaps to a lesser extent than other arguments) , then returns to the 2nd. as a legal basis is logically inconsistent?

Not for the reasons you have outlined. I don't believe in a "literal reading of the Constitution," but that's besides the point anyway: rights don't come from the Constitution. Rights are simply enumerated in the Constitution.

To put it more precisely: the right to own property and the right to defend ones self are what make up a right to bear arms. If nobody wanted to sell me a gun, it wouldn't be a violation of my rights.

For the same reason that I have a right to my own body and can do with it as I please (and... I please), I can own whatever I can make or trade (guns included). This is consistent with the right to ingest drugs, the right to marry whoever you please, and the right to free speech, etc.

The slippery slope argument that often arises from those rights (people will commit suicide with drugs; people will marry animals; people will yell "fire" in a crowded theater)- rings true with guns as well: people will own bazookas and flame throwers.

As I eluded to in my response to marplots: nobody seems to have an issue with people in uniforms owning these items, yet they are just as irrational, just as corrupt, just as prone to error as every other individual. The thought of my neighbor owning a bazooka doesn't frighten me; the thought of nobody but a militarized police force owning one by way of edict does.

ETA: For those who may have a problem swallowing that argument, consider the hype around all the "mental illness" issues and background checks, yet there isn't much concern around 1 in 5 soldiers having a mental illness and having access to serious weaponry.