America and Guns,

[marplots]

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.

I highlighted some of the problem phrases in that. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban guns. You do not. I think, being a reasonable man, that this harms no one and helps many - you, being a reasonable man, think there are harmful consequences. Of course, each of us thinks the other is being unreasonable.

While the phrasing in the quote is nice, it boils down to what we can come to agreement about - in other words, as I said before, a social contract.

But, to show how deep the rabbit hole goes, and for the sake of argument, suppose we say the quote describes a situation that is actually achievable. On what basis, other than my own sense of right and wrong, should I accept it? This too would require an agreement to abide by it from all parties concerned.

So, there are two serious points of failure. The first is overlooking the fictional basis for the rule. The second is that applying the rule requires us to rely on something other than the rule.

 

[sunmaster14]

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



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.

I have no idea who Jim is except that he must have been an internet savvy dude two decades ago in order to grab himself the jim.com domain. And not such a good businessman to have held on to it for this long.

In any case, who cares who wrote the essay? Maybe it's the word of God, or just maybe it was created by 1,000 monkeys randomly banging on 1,000 keyboards for 1,000 hours. The point is, the essay speaks for itself. If you're wondering whether it's worth your time, well, you'll just have to trust me on that. But you always have the option of bailing at any point.

 

[Totovader]

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

As Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist #29;


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:



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

This does not refute what I posted above, it confirms it. When Hamilton said "well regulated" he was referring to the fitness of the militia, when he said it should be regulated, he meant directed (in times of emergency). If you still aren't clear, here's another quote from The Federalist Papers by Hamilton:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

Here, he's talking about how much of a pain it will be to ensure that militias are well regulated as in practiced.

 

[Totovader]

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.

The 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That has absolutely nothing to do with you preventing me from speaking. I'm not even sure where your argument is coming from.

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.

Ok, but I'm not arguing moral relativism. The fact that those beheadings happen for "non-crimes" kinda tells us something about how intertwined rights are with morality. You defeated your own argument, here.

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?

Ugh "social contract"... another contradiction in terms.

The right of self defense is a corollary of our right to life- without the right to defend ourselves against an initiation of force, our right to life would be contradictory (and thus, cannot exist since contradictions do not exist). If you want to say that there is no right to life... well, your whole argument falls apart pretty quickly, because then we go back to a rule by brutes. And, as an aside, you would have no basis with which to say your life is not to be sacrificed to the first brute who comes along and claims it. It's self-defeating... literally.

 

[Craig4]

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.

The rational argument debate is over. There is no serious upside to having a country so awash with guns. The social science on this is unambiguous. We just need to recognize that legislation will only come with demand reduction by making guns less desirable.

 

[Totovader]

The rational argument debate is over. There is no serious upside to having a country so awash with guns. The social science on this is unambiguous. We just need to recognize that legislation will only come with demand reduction by making guns less desirable.

So you are saying that- for the purposes of your argument- you have abandoned logic and reason?

I'm sorry, but how can you expect anyone to take that argument seriously? It's like saying "We don't need science to understand the Universe! Just follow your heart and believe in [deity]!" The tools with which we understand right from wrong, good from bad, and true from false are logic and reason. If you've abandoned that for your argument, it's kinda hard to find any credibility in what you're saying.

 

[marplots]

The 1st Amendment says:

That has absolutely nothing to do with you preventing me from speaking. I'm not even sure where your argument is coming from.

Congress is an extension of the will of the people, and by that, me.

The right of self defense is a corollary of our right to life- without the right to defend ourselves against an initiation of force, our right to life would be contradictory (and thus, cannot exist since contradictions do not exist). If you want to say that there is no right to life... well, your whole argument falls apart pretty quickly, because then we go back to a rule by brutes. And, as an aside, you would have no basis with which to say your life is not to be sacrificed to the first brute who comes along and claims it. It's self-defeating... literally.

But your principle, while it sounds good, isn't actually in practice at all. For example, there is no equivalent right to be fed, clothed or receive medical care - at least not without paying for same. All of these are concerned with keeping me alive, so should have the same basis. But they do not exist, because you are making a connection that doesn't really exist. Even if the idea of survival as the basis for rights were true, it would still only be so if we agreed it should be.

There is no right of self-defense enumerated in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says you get to keep and bear arms. You can spend all day shooting at trees or live in a steel fortress - and you still get to have your gun. Tacking on "self defense," as if one couldn't defend oneself in a hundred other ways is connecting guns to a fiction, the fiction you keep bringing up about "brutes" as if we were in the stone age. It's as if you are claiming there can't be lions, because lions don't recognize the right to self-defense and the big lions kill the smaller lions.

Have you rethought the idea that rights are more than just agreements we make with each other about how we will run our society?

 

[Totovader]

Congress is an extension of the will of the people, and by that, me.

That simply doesn't follow from your argument. Remember: you were claiming that rights "bind us together and restrict our behavior." To say that you are "Congress" as referred to in the First Amendment is... not really addressing my question, and kind of weird.

But your principle, while it sounds good, isn't actually in practice at all.

It is- to some degree- but it's not held consistently. That's kind of my point.

For example, there is no equivalent right to be fed, clothed or receive medical care - at least not without paying for same. All of these are concerned with keeping me alive, so should have the same basis. But they do not exist, because you are making a connection that doesn't really exist. Even if the idea of survival as the basis for rights were true, it would still only be so if we agreed it should be.

Incorrect. The right to life isn't the right for others to keep you alive- it's not a demand put on others to clothe you, feed you, or care for you at the point of a gun. It is your right to your own self- the fruits of your labor and, by extension, your property. You have a right to defend that. So-called "positive" rights (a right to something) cannot exist. Using your example above, a claimed right to food would require someone else provide you with that food- or they would be violating your rights... in other words: slavery. This is logically inconsistent with a right to life.

There is no right of self-defense enumerated in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says you get to keep and bear arms. You can spend all day shooting at trees or live in a steel fortress - and you still get to have your gun. Tacking on "self defense," as if one couldn't defend oneself in a hundred other ways is connecting guns to a fiction, the fiction you keep bringing up about "brutes" as if we were in the stone age. It's as if you are claiming there can't be lions, because lions don't recognize the right to self-defense and the big lions kill the smaller lions.

Incorrect. The Founders specifically were addressing the right to self defense in the most significant form: self defense from the tyranny of ones own out-of-control government. Open up any history book and turn to the chapter on the war for US independence and you'll quickly become familiar with what the 2nd Amendment was all about.

Have you rethought the idea that rights are more than just agreements we make with each other about how we will run our society?

It's a logically inconsistent assertion- a contradiction in terms. I don't need to think about it any more than that. I also don't give much thought to square circles, blue things that are red, or invisible Gods.

However, the great thing about our ability as humans to reason means that- as long as you apply it consistently- if you sit down and think about what rights are, where they come from, and how to hold a logically consistent definition of them- you will come up with something pretty close to what I'm talking about.

 

[marplots]

However, the great thing about our ability as humans to reason means that- as long as you apply it consistently- if you sit down and think about what rights are, where they come from, and how to hold a logically consistent definition of them- you will come up with something pretty close to what I'm talking about.

But in respect to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, we know where they come from. They weren't handed down by God, nor the result of some natural law in play - men sat down, argued about them, and then voted on them. This is where those rights came from and on occasion the same mechanisms have been used to remove them. There is no higher power here; not even trying to wedge logic into the slot works.

I understand that gun supporters think they need to make the Second Amendment into holy writ, but I fear it won't support the burden.

Other men have done much the same. For example, if you check the UN's charter on human rights, you won't find a gun clause there.

The really distasteful bit though, is the hypocrisy. Somehow, the much vaunted "right" ends up being a right for the person espousing it and not so much for other people. So we restrict gun ownership and don't allow kids to have them, or felons, or the criminally insane. Are we taking away the right to self-defense for these categories? Who cares, really, so long as I got mine?

 

[newyorkguy]

I have no idea who Jim is except that he must have been an internet savvy dude two decades ago in order to grab himself the jim.com domain....In any case, who cares who wrote the essay? Maybe it's the word of God, or just maybe it was created by 1,000 monkeys randomly banging on 1,000 keyboards for 1,000 hours. The point is, the essay speaks for itself...

It's not so much that you and I don't know who Jim is, it's that Jim doesn't say who he is. In my experience that's usually a warning sign. Yes the essay speaks for itself. And to my eyes it looks a lot like woo:

Natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular the law that historically existed (in so far as any law existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians that overran the Roman Empire.

Jim (James A. Donald) is still hard at work, now he has a blog called Jim's blog. Some recent pearls:

Five days ago:

Obviously it was stupid to emancipate women. Fertile age women should have the legal status of children. The state should back parental authority over children, and the husband’s authority over his wife.

Twelve days ago:

Let us compare with the holier than thou abolitionists who caused a civil war that killed a large part of the white male population, burned cities to the ground, and created artificial famine. After the slaves were freed, a significant proportion died, being generally incompetent to look after themselves.

A deep thinker he ain't!

 

[Totovader]

But in respect to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, we know where they come from. They weren't handed down by God, nor the result of some natural law in play - men sat down, argued about them, and then voted on them. This is where those rights came from and on occasion the same mechanisms have been used to remove them. There is no higher power here; not even trying to wedge logic into the slot works.

I understand that gun supporters think they need to make the Second Amendment into holy writ, but I fear it won't support the burden.

Other men have done much the same. For example, if you check the UN's charter on human rights, you won't find a gun clause there.

The really distasteful bit though, is the hypocrisy. Somehow, the much vaunted "right" ends up being a right for the person espousing it and not so much for other people. So we restrict gun ownership and don't allow kids to have them, or felons, or the criminally insane. Are we taking away the right to self-defense for these categories? Who cares, really, so long as I got mine?

You have widdled the argument down to the point of being useless. This isn't even a response to my argument.

 

[Craig4]

So you are saying that- for the purposes of your argument- you have abandoned logic and reason?

I'm sorry, but how can you expect anyone to take that argument seriously? It's like saying "We don't need science to understand the Universe! Just follow your heart and believe in [deity]!" The tools with which we understand right from wrong, good from bad, and true from false are logic and reason. If you've abandoned that for your argument, it's kinda hard to find any credibility in what you're saying.

The science is settled. It's not that I don't want to debate the science, the verdict is just in and it's clear being awash in guns is a serious public health threat to our country. It appears more to me that you don't like the data. That's hardly my problem. Or do you suppose it's an accident we rank where we do on gun deaths per 100,000? If you want to rehash the data, fine but it won't change the obvious conclusion.

 

[Old man]

Other men have done much the same. For example, if you check the UN's charter on human rights, you won't find a gun clause there...

Not specifically, but how can people secure this 'right' -

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

from violators of human rights?

 

[elbe]

Not specifically, but how can people secure this 'right' - from violators of human rights?

Story. I was once at Cedar Point and I saw a man walking around with a rifle or shotgun (it was many years ago). While I assume he worked there, since no one seemed to be bothering him, it didn't make me feel particularly secure.

I think a concept like personal security is a bit more complex than just letting people carry guns.

 

[Totovader]

The science is settled. It's not that I don't want to debate the science, the verdict is just in and it's clear being awash in guns is a serious public health threat to our country. It appears more to me that you don't like the data. That's hardly my problem. Or do you suppose it's an accident we rank where we do on gun deaths per 100,000? If you want to rehash the data, fine but it won't change the obvious conclusion.

Your argument is entirely without merit.

 

[NoahFence]

However, the great thing about our ability as humans to reason means that- as long as you apply it consistently- if you sit down and think about what rights are, where they come from, and how to hold a logically consistent definition of them- you will come up with something pretty close to what I'm talking about.

In your estimation, where do they come from?

 

[sunmaster14]

I highlighted some of the problem phrases in that. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban guns. You do not. I think, being a reasonable man, that this harms no one and helps many - you, being a reasonable man, think there are harmful consequences. Of course, each of us thinks the other is being unreasonable.

While the phrasing in the quote is nice, it boils down to what we can come to agreement about - in other words, as I said before, a social contract.

But, to show how deep the rabbit hole goes, and for the sake of argument, suppose we say the quote describes a situation that is actually achievable. On what basis, other than my own sense of right and wrong, should I accept it? This too would require an agreement to abide by it from all parties concerned.

So, there are two serious points of failure. The first is overlooking the fictional basis for the rule. The second is that applying the rule requires us to rely on something other than the rule.

You really should read the essay, which you obviously haven't. The essay argues that natural laws, and the natural rights which flow from them, are rooted in our biology. A product of evolution. Natural law exists because of the kind of animal a human is, which is a social animal, but not a socialist animal like a bee or an ant.

In the context of the essay, "reasonable" means normal, as in not psychopathic. The vast majority of men are "reasonable" to the extent that they can live together and cooperate and build things as humans have for tens of thousands of years. Yes, we have been taught in the schools that humans have a violent history, and I suppose they do relative to contemporary, developed societies. But that violent history has been greatly exaggerated, particularly by thinkers like Hobbes who believe that government is needed to control what is a naturally savage and irrational human. Humans are not naturally savage, although they will become so under extreme stress, which is also rooted in our biology.

In any case, by the definition used in the essay (and particularly in the part I excerpted), you are a reasonable human, as am I. The fact that you push peacefully for laws which I will oppose peacefully does not change that fact. I do not consider you a sufficiently direct and concrete threat to my safety that I would act in such a way that you might consider the same about me, and vice versa.

The right to self defense is rooted in a biology we both share, although we may not understand it or even think about it. Despite your opposition to guns, and let's assume for the moment that you want to see all guns banned and that they have been, I think if you saw a man on a street attack another man with a rock or a knife and the defending man then pull out a gun and shoot the attacking man dead, you would not find the shooter to be a threat. If that man turned to you and said "he was trying to kill me," I think you would run up to try to help and would not fear for your life from the man with the gun. And if later the police arrested that man and charged him with murder, I think you would voluntarily testify in that man's defense. That is because I believe you are a reasonable human.

Now, does this natural right to self-defense become a right to own a gun? Of course not. The right to own a gun is something that the societies we live in can either allow or proscribe, and they will still function ok as societies. Reasonable people won't immediately think the government which passed a gun ban (according to the rules, I should add) is illegitimate, as they would if the government passed a law banning private ownership of property.

However, the right to own a gun can still be argued (persuasively in my opinion) from the standpoint of the right to self-defense. A gun is a great equalizer, and it is the only weapon I know of which can deter a 250lb man from attacking a 100lb woman. As the old Colt Manufacturing slogan went "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

The essayist goes a little further and believes that private ownership of guns is necessary to prevent government tyranny. I agree with him. I am not saying that tyranny is inevitable if the government has an absolute monopoly on guns, but it becomes a greater risk, and that in my estimate, the price we are currently paying to minimize that risk, in terms of innocent lives lost per year because of our 2nd Amendment, is worth it. That's not even counting the ancillary benefits of private gun ownership, which is a general reduction of crime, both violent and otherwise (although obviously not murders with firearms).

 

[marplots]

Sunmaster,
I found that very reasonable and well stated. I didn't quote it because I didn't feel the need to dispute anything in it.

 

[NoahFence]

The essayist goes a little further and believes that private ownership of guns is necessary to prevent government tyranny. I agree with him. I am not saying that tyranny is inevitable if the government has an absolute monopoly on guns, but it becomes a greater risk, and that in my estimate, the price we are currently paying to minimize that risk, in terms of innocent lives lost per year because of our 2nd Amendment, is worth it.

I'll hear this argument another thousand times and it'll never, ever make any sense.

Our protection from government tyranny does not come from citizens ability to counteract it. The protection is the fact that the government's armed forces are comprised of citizen volunteers. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that can protect us from government tyranny. Nothing at all - at least not in 2014.

Whether we want to admit it or not, when the 2nd was penned, the government had the same arms as us, just more of them. Today, the government can level cities without even getting out of their pajama's.

 

[Cleon]

Story. I was once at Cedar Point and I saw a man walking around with a rifle or shotgun (it was many years ago). While I assume he worked there, since no one seemed to be bothering him, it didn't make me feel particularly secure.

I think a concept like personal security is a bit more complex than just letting people carry guns.

If you don't mind me asking, when was that? I worked there in 1998 and they had a pretty strict "no weapons" policy. The Park does have its own police, which does have access to firearms, but they didn't regularly carry them IIRC.