America and Guns,

[Babbylonian]

Other modern democracies "do just fine" without a first amendment too. Shall we just flush that while we're at it?

We don't need to be just like everyone else. I don't want to be just like everyone else.

Super. So, appendicitis can continue to bankrupt families and we can go on letting virtually any moron not only own a handgun but (depending on the state) easily get a permit to carry it around in anticipation of shooting someone.

It's so great to live in this special nation.

 

[Totovader]

Super. So, appendicitis can continue to bankrupt families and we can go on letting virtually any moron not only own a handgun but (depending on the state) easily get a permit to carry it around in anticipation of shooting someone.

It's so great to live in this special nation.

What percentage of the population do you think are morons? Or is it just 100% of people who own a handgun?

 

[Babbylonian]

What percentage of the population do you think are morons? Or is it just 100% of people who own a handgun?

Don't bother. That particular tactic isn't going to work on me.

 

[Totovader]

Don't bother. That particular tactic isn't going to work on me.

Holding you to your definitions? Pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument? Underscoring the absurdity of your claims?

I don't suspect it will.

 

[DavidJames]

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?

Interesting that your question was quoted twice but never actually answered. Unless you consider misdirection, dancing and weaving as answers.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Where do rights come from?

 

[Babbylonian]

Holding you to your definitions? Pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument? Underscoring the absurdity of your claims?

I don't suspect it will.

I have no intention of personalizing the argument. You're welcome to do so if you'd like, of course.

 

[Totovader]

I have no intention of personalizing the argument. You're welcome to do so if you'd like, of course.

I'm not personalizing the argument. I'm holding you to your definitions, pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument, and underscoring the absurdity of your claims.

The fact that you made the argument only makes you responsible for doing these up front. The fact that you have neglected to do so is not a personal matter.

 

[Craig4]

What are you talking about? The Second Amendment specifically refers to the peoples militia, not "The Militia." That means we have a right to organize into groups to protect our neighbors and cities. Neighborhood Watch is an example of this.

Plus, the argument that rights expire because we don't use them is just silly. We haven't had a soldier quartered in our homes for a pretty long time, so does that right go away?

Please apply the phrase "well regulated" to your thesis.

 

[Totovader]

Please apply the phrase "well regulated" to your thesis.

I already addressed that above. Regulated does not mean government regulated. It means to be in proper working order.

 

[newyorkguy]

Texas was a no-issue state? Texas?

Like many southern and border states, historically, Texas did restrict the right to carry a gun. A fundamental reason was so that blacks would not arm themselves. In fact this was the issue the much misinterpreted Cruickshank case revolved around. Could local law enforcement strip citizens -- in this case black citizens in Louisiana -- of the right to carry guns? Cruickshank ruled that they could, that the Second Amendment DID NOT confer an individual right to carry a gun.

The relaxing of gun laws in Texas in 1995 -- and it was Governor George W. Bush who signed the new law -- came largely as a result of lobbying by the gun lobby. This is from a news article that appeared in the Baltimore Sun in May 1995:

The law makes Texas the 25th state in which ordinary citizens can easily obtain permits to carry concealed handguns, and it marks another key victory in the NRA's national campaign to replace state gun control laws with strong gun rights statutes. Link

Ironically, also in May 1995, Governor Bush's father had resigned from the NRA -- and reportedly burned his membership card -- after the group refused to endorse him in 1992 for placing a temporary ban on the import of certain semi-automatic weapons and after he, Bush, received a form letter from the NRA referring to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs." The letter George H. W. Bush wrote said in part:

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did. Link

 

[NoahFence]

I already addressed that above. Regulated does not mean government regulated. It means to be in proper working order.

"Well regulated" citizen militias are no longer in service however. All groups that can be construed as a militia are governed by either states, or the feds from what I understand.

That text is out-dated.

 

[Distracted1]

Interesting that your question was quoted twice but never actually answered. Unless you consider misdirection, dancing and weaving as answers.

That little two-step with regards to the 2nd. always brings to mind discussions I have had with the faithful regarding the Bible.
I can accept an argument that it is supreme and unerring. When I point out that it allows ( and in some cases requires ) behavior that is abhorrent to most human beings, one can either uphold its' infallability, or admit that it is metaphorical. However, once one has acceded the garden of Eden as metaphorical in nature, one cannot then argue that the resurrection is literal based upon the unerring nature of the book.

If one asserts the 2nd. is a protection of everyone's right to bear any arm ,all the time, based upon its language, fine.
Accede to a requirement that someone released from a halfway house may not immediately purchase poison gas grenades and a launcher for same, and one has accepted that the 2nd. does not necessarily protect your right to your own Colt45- you may argue that you have that right, but can no longer base it upon a literal reading that your right to keep and bear " may not be infringed".

 

[fuelair]

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 inserted a phrase to correct your logic.



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.



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.

The movie goofed - big time.... Soylent RED was people, Soylent Green was lentils/vegetarian.

 

[Polaris]

Super. So, appendicitis can continue to bankrupt families and we can go on letting virtually any moron not only own a handgun but (depending on the state) easily get a permit to carry it around in anticipation of shooting someone.

It's so great to live in this special nation.

Evidence?

 

[marplots]

(Some snipped to keep this manageable)To bind us together and restrict our behaviors? The right to free speech... what behavior is that restricting? How is it binding us together?

Yes, enumerating rights binds us together because we all agree to abide by the restrictions. What are those restrictions? Well, as far as free speech, I am not allowed to prevent you from speaking and am prohibited from doing so. This is a restriction I accept and, since we are bound together under the same agreed-upon rules, I expect you to accept the same restrictions on your behavior.

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.


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.

I don't think morals have anything to do with it, at least not in the sense of some universal moral law. "Morally justified" is just a shorthand for what some group believes is correct behavior. There are people in the Middle East losing their heads over what we would consider non-crimes because their group believes the beheadings are morally justified.

Can you tell me what you think rights are, if not some agreement made in the form of a social contract? For instance, what are you proposing underlies the right to self-defense as embodied in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[sunmaster14]

Interesting that your question was quoted twice but never actually answered. Unless you consider misdirection, dancing and weaving as answers.

What am I, chopped liver? I tackled his question head-on. That question had to be carried off the field on a stretcher.

 

[sunmaster14]

Can you tell me what you think rights are, if not some agreement made in the form of a social contract? For instance, what are you proposing underlies the right to self-defense as embodied in the 2nd Amendment?

Your answer is here. It's a long article but well worth the time. I've posted the key point a couple of times on JREF but will do so again.

Here follows a definition of natural law in properly scientific terms, value free terms:

An act is a violation of natural law if, were a man to commit such an act in a state of nature, (that is to say, in the absence of an orderly and widely accepted method of resolving disputes), a second man, knowing the facts and being a reasonable man, would reasonably conclude that the first man constituted a threat or danger to the second man, his family, or his property, and if a third man, knowing the facts and being a reasonable man, were to observe the second man getting rid of the first man, the third man would not reasonably conclude that the second man constituted a threat or danger to the third man, his family, or his property.

 

[Kestrel]

I already addressed that above. Regulated does not mean government regulated. It means to be in proper working order.

Yes, that is a standard gun lobby talking point. It is also pure BS.

As Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist #29;

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Hamilton was talking about Congress, and using the word regulation as government regulation. In fact, the Constitution rather clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the militia:

The Congress shall have power …

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A militia group that does not follow the rules set forth in the Constitution is really just a gun club.

 

[newyorkguy]

Your answer is here...

'An' answer. This link appears to go to Jame's Liberty File Collection, an Internet site described as :

James's Liberty file collection index
Description: Liberty, the right to bear arms, and Natural rights. This collection contains mostly ancient philosophy rather than fast breaking news. The issues discussed here have been discussed for centuries. Link

Who exactly is Jim? That's a little tricky to find out. There's no "About Us" menu on his 'home page.' So without knowing who he is or what his agenda is (if any) this does not appear to me to be of much value. There are far more reliable sites available. I'm very disappointed at this.