America and Guns,

[Totovader]

How ya figure? Not that it matters. Gun ownership is down and support for control is up in the latest polling.

It should should be instructive to you that non-smokers decide when and where smokers can smoke these days. It's going to be a generational shift but we'll get there.

Because reason and logic are more important than whims and intellectual dishonesty. To get to the truth we need to use the tools of truth- not of falsehoods and deception. That's why we have a good understanding of logic and logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum...

 

[NoahFence]

You'll let us know when you start using the tools of reason and logic, right?

 

[DavidJames]

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.

Because reason and logic are more important than whims and intellectual dishonesty. To get to the truth we need to use the tools of truth- not of falsehoods and deception. That's why we have a good understanding of logic and logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum...

Like Wildcat's, right?

 

[Totovader]

Like Wildcat's, right?

If you're going to present a counter-argument to the evidence, you're going to have to give a little more than this. I don't even understand what your argument is.

 

[NoahFence]

It's pretty easy to follow.

 

[Steve]

I like to read these many threads on guns in the US because the concepts discussed are quite foreign to me. In my city of nearly half a million there have been 7 murders this year with guns. Without exception these have been gang members shooting each other. A non gang member using a gun for protection is something I cannot ever recall hearing about.

What I am gurrenly wondering is this:

There are two common justifications presented by gun advocates in favor of private ownership. One is for self-defense and the prevention of personal injury. The other is prevention of tyranny - the ability to fight against the government.

In the personal protection category many anecdotes are offered where people provide examples of experiencse where this type of protection was necessary.
In the prevention of tyranny category I do not see that any examples have ever been offered. Is it safe to assume that this necessity has never arisen during the 250 year existence of your country, but that there is a justifiable reason to expect that it will arise at some time in the future?

I think that perhaps one example where a significant number of Americans took up arms against perceived tyranny might be the American civil war. Look how that turned out for the ones that were fighting against tyranny.

 

[Chaos]

These guys would disagree, and frankly- they would know.

History would disagree with you. Any rational person would disagree.

When the argument is so patently false, the counter-argument is quite simple. It's not name-calling: scroll up for a genuine example of that.

How about the parts that you - quite dishonestly - did not quote:

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.

NoahFence has made it clear the the Revolutionary War is not proof that anything like that would be possible today.

 

[NoahFence]

bah
nevermind

 

[newyorkguy]

...I know I think the 2nd Amendment should remain intact and untouched, and that isn't my portion of the argument in the least...

I agree with you, I wish the Second Amendment HAD remained intact and untouched. Only it hasn't. For close to 200 years the SA was seen as ceding control over firearms to state authorities. It was interpreted as meaning the federal government could not interfere. The Scalia Court turned that meaning on it's head.

I believe in local control. If a rural county in Missouri or Iowa wants to grant to any citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony the right to own and carry a gun that's fine. Or even an entire state such as Florida. At the same time if New York City and the suburban counties want to use special conditions to restrict carrying -- on the notion that the more guns that are out there the more chances there are that somebody will get shot -- I think we should have that right. And for the past one hundred years we have had that right.

Even the Scalia Supreme Court is backing away a bit from the idea no locality can restrict handguns. Maryland enacted a tough gun control law. Under it an applicant for a handgun permit must demonstrate "a good and substantial reason," they can't just say, "I want to carry a handgun for self-defense." The Second Amendment Foundation -- the same people who litigated Heller and McDonald -- appealed this law all the way to the Supreme Court. Last October the Court declined to hear the appeal. The story from a Baltimore Sun article published last October. So maybe the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.

 

[NoahFence]

I believe in local control. If a rural county in Missouri or Iowa wants to grant to any citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony the right to own and carry a gun that's fine. Or even an entire state such as Florida. At the same time if New York City and the suburban counties want to use special conditions to restrict carrying -- on the notion that the more guns that are out there the more chances there are that somebody will get shot -- I think we should have that right. And for the past one hundred years we have had that right.

The only real hurdle that I can think of to local control, is what of the traveller? If I'm driving from state to state, how do I know all possible local laws in the areas I'm in? If it's a federal law, at least we all have the same script to go by....

 

[Polaris]

I agree with you, I wish the Second Amendment HAD remained intact and untouched. Only it hasn't. For close to 200 years the SA was seen as ceding control over firearms to state authorities. It was interpreted as meaning the federal government could not interfere. The Scalia Court turned that meaning on it's head.

I believe in local control. If a rural county in Missouri or Iowa wants to grant to any citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony the right to own and carry a gun that's fine. Or even an entire state such as Florida. At the same time if New York City and the suburban counties want to use special conditions to restrict carrying -- on the notion that the more guns that are out there the more chances there are that somebody will get shot -- I think we should have that right. And for the past one hundred years we have had that right.

Even the Scalia Supreme Court is backing away a bit from the idea no locality can restrict handguns. Maryland enacted a tough gun control law. Under it an applicant for a handgun permit must demonstrate "a good and substantial reason," they can't just say, "I want to carry a handgun for self-defense." The Second Amendment Foundation -- the same people who litigated Heller and McDonald -- appealed this law all the way to the Supreme Court. Last October the Court declined to hear the appeal. The story from a Baltimore Sun article published last October. So maybe the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.

In addition to travelers passing through, the portion in bold unfortunately tends to translate into "is a local politician's buddy".

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

In the prevention of tyranny category I do not see that any examples have ever been offered. Is it safe to assume that this necessity has never arisen during the 250 year existence of your country, but that there is a justifiable reason to expect that it will arise at some time in the future?

Not any more than it is safe to assume that you didn't need the vaccinations you received as a child.

 

[Giz]

I agree with you, I wish the Second Amendment HAD remained intact and untouched. Only it hasn't. For close to 200 years the SA was seen as ceding control over firearms to state authorities. It was interpreted as meaning the federal government could not interfere. The Scalia Court turned that meaning on it's head.

I believe in local control. If a rural county in Missouri or Iowa wants to grant to any citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony the right to own and carry a gun that's fine. Or even an entire state such as Florida. At the same time if New York City and the suburban counties want to use special conditions to restrict carrying -- on the notion that the more guns that are out there the more chances there are that somebody will get shot -- I think we should have that right. And for the past one hundred years we have had that right.

Even the Scalia Supreme Court is backing away a bit from the idea no locality can restrict handguns. Maryland enacted a tough gun control law. Under it an applicant for a handgun permit must demonstrate "a good and substantial reason," they can't just say, "I want to carry a handgun for self-defense." The Second Amendment Foundation -- the same people who litigated Heller and McDonald -- appealed this law all the way to the Supreme Court. Last October the Court declined to hear the appeal. The story from a Baltimore Sun article published last October. So maybe the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.

Ooh, citizens civil liberties handled on the local level. That way we could have alabama handle minorities voting according to their norms and new York could handle gun owners according to their norms. How could this go wrong?

 

[tsig]

I am 30. I believe that as long as the United States immorally bans private ownership of the M4, the American people are only one step above slaves.

I can't feel fully free from the government without an M1A1 tank and the government ought to buy it for me since it's a necessity./tea partyer off

 

[tsig]

That's not my assumption at all. I'm simply responding to that portion of the argument from the people who view the 2nd Amendment as holy writ. I'm well aware that gun ownership consists of far more than the illogical implication that they're preparing for tyranny.



So basically the plot of "Revolution".

That was a TV show.

Gun nuts seem to suffer from a continual case of shootus interupptus and the lack of a dramatic climax makes them blue.

 

[tsig]

...Still trying to figure out where our rights come from if not the constitution....

If you're not going with the rule of law that leaves might makes right that's why you got to carry a 44 magnum.

 

[newyorkguy]

The only real hurdle that I can think of to local control, is what of the traveller? If I'm driving from state to state, how do I know all possible local laws in the areas I'm in? If it's a federal law, at least we all have the same script to go by....

If you're driving from state-to-state with a firearm why would it be onerous for you to check in advance the laws in the places you'll be visiting. Isn't that already the way it works?

...the portion in bold ["a good and substantial reason"] unfortunately tends to translate into "is a local politician's buddy".

It doesn't have to be that way and it's already changing. Gun advocates should put their energies into-

• Defining what ARE the good and substantial reasons that should qualify someone to be permitted to carry a handgun.
• Make sure that people who meet the standard get approved when they apply.

Common sense solutions we can all agree on instead of divisiveness. It can be done.

 

[NoahFence]

If you're driving from state-to-state with a firearm why would it be onerous for you to check in advance the laws in the places you'll be visiting. Isn't that already the way it works?

.

I thought we were going even smaller - to the county level. I figure that much planning could be a bit much. From state to state I agree, no biggie.

It would just be easier in my opinion to make it federal.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian
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.

Man I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating It can be.
Man No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.

 

[newyorkguy]

I thought we were going even smaller - to the county level. I figure that much planning could be a bit much. From state to state I agree, no biggie.

You're still not getting this. I'm not proposing anything new. I'm referring to maintaining the restrictions that EXIST NOW. What do handgun owners do now when they travel out-of-state? This is what the NRA recommends:

Many states and localities have laws governing the transportation of firearms. Travelers must be aware of these laws and comply with legal requirements in each jurisdiction. There is no uniform state transportation procedure for firearms. If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle’s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Link

Are you suggesting it should be legal to carry a handgun anywhere in the United States to avoid inconveniencing travelers?