Guns.

[Darat]

 

[Cain]

They don't have to, if they can preserve their rights through the electoral process. They've done pretty well there, you have to admit.

It's not something I would reluctantly "admit"; it's something I have already said.

Why not? Not every gun ends up killing someone. Every abortion does.

Yeah, obviously I'm stretching this to the breaking point (and I'm happily contemplating the idea of your pulling your head off your shoulders with your bare hands in your fury at me...).

As already pointed out, this makes the assumption that the entity in question -- the embryo/fetus -- is morally significant.

But the fact remains that there are those who would put the Constitution under a microscope and miraculously discover in it almost any right they choose to espouse, while at the same time denying certain other rights they disapprove of, even though those rights are explicitly stated, on the grounds of some perceived ambiguity in the enumeration of those rights.

This is a common criticism, as I suggested, and it does not really interest me in the context of this thread (Scalia's "Textualism" versus Douglas's "emanating penumbra").

 

[BPSCG]

This is a common criticism, as I suggested, and it does not really interest me in the context of this thread (Scalia's "Textualism" versus Douglas's "emanating penumbra").

I can understand your reluctance to discuss this, because you've boxed yourself into the philosophical paradox of being a living Constitutionalist when it comes to abortion, but a very strict constructionist when it comes to the second amendment. You've decided what you like, and you interpret the Constitution to fit your preferences.

 

[Cain]

I can understand your reluctance to discuss this, because you've boxed yourself into the philosophical paradox of being a living Constitutionalist when it comes to abortion, but a very strict constructionist when it comes to the second amendment. You've decided what you like, and you interpret the Constitution to fit your preferences.

I see you haven't the slightest understanding of anything I've said. (Compare with previous misunderstandings/straw men: The so-called Jim inconsistency, the gun ban straw man, the capricious "weekly" change straw man). My (so-called) "very strict" constructionism holds that the Constitution has intended internal mechanisms to reconcile the law with social, political and economic change?? Leaving this aside, are you aware of the mode of argument where someone grants her opponent's premises in order to identify an errant deduction? You should be because you earlier engaged in exactly this sort of thought experiment.

I'm generally not interested in what the law is. The original question in the parent post was of a normative nature, and I explicitly admonished the poster in my first response that this thread will not generate enlightening contributions because people tend to get bogged down in their constitutional view -- which is philosophically irrelevant and ethnocentric. (Which is not to say culture is an irrelevant consideration.)

 

[BPSCG]

My (so-called) "very strict" constructionism holds that the Constitution has intended internal mechanisms to reconcile the law with social, political and economic change??

No. Your very strict constructionism is a handy philosophy you use when it suits your purpose, and abandon for its philosophical opposite when the opposite suits your purpose.

When it suits your purpose, you invoke strict constructionism: The second amendment starts, "A well-regulated Militia..." and you latch on to that phrase as proof that the right to bear arms belongs to the militia, not to individuals. Cylinder showed how, when the Constitution was written, the term "militia" meant pretty much anyone who could carry a gun. But you are a strict constructionist here; militia means militia, not individuals. Your "penumbra of rights" doesn't apply to the second amendment.

But when you get to abortion, it's another story. Now Cain the strict constructionist becomes Cain the living constitutionalist. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, but you have examined the Constitution under a powerful microscope and discovered it does indeed guarantee the right to abortion.

You have boxed yourself into a position where you must embrace one philosophy to support one law you agree with, then abandon that philosophy and embrace its opposite to support another law. A philosophy that can be discarded so easily is not a philosophy; it's an expedient.

Leaving this aside, are you aware of the mode of argument where someone grants her opponent's premises in order to identify an errant deduction?

Quite familliar with it; I rather like using it. It's a tool of argument - not a fallacy.

Simply put, it involves temporarily acknowledging that X is true, whether one knows for certain whether it is or not. One then examines the logical ramifications of "X = true." If the ramifications of X being true leads to a logical absurdity, then X can not be true (or, as Ayn Rand said, "There are no paradoxes. If you think you have a paradox, examine your premises, because one of them is wrong.").

I like this tool. It enables me to ask, "If abortion is a right under the 'living constitution' theory, then could gun ownership also be a right under the same theory?" It was a carefully baited hook, and you greedily gobbled it down, forcing you into the position of being a strict constructionist vis a vis the second amendment, and rejecting strict constructionism vis a vis abortion. What do you call someone who jettisons his principles the moment he finds them inconvenient?

 

[Phrost]

This decorates my living room:

 

[Elind]

Should we outlaw them or not?

I know that this is probably the most sensitive topic on the JREF's political forum but this is one issue I am undecided on and I would like to hear both sides.

Both sides? There are only two sides?

 

[Elind]

We have had quite a few gun threads before but I haven't seen any for a while. As I recall we were unanimous in agreeing guns were bad and should be banned.

Who is "we"?

 

[gnome]

For what it's worth... I'll confess, when I was more of an anti-gun type, I latched on to that phrase of the 2nd amendment myself. After speaking to several intelligent people of a different position, and some self-examination, I concluded that I latched onto that interpretation because it matched my own feelings. After further consideration, I came to a more moderate opinion.

 

[Cain]

No. Your very strict constructionism is a handy philosophy you use when it suits your purpose, and abandon for its philosophical opposite when the opposite suits your purpose.

When it suits your purpose, you invoke strict constructionism: The second amendment starts, "A well-regulated Militia..." and you latch on to that phrase as proof that the right to bear arms belongs to the militia, not to individuals. Cylinder showed how, when the Constitution was written, the term "militia" meant pretty much anyone who could carry a gun. But you are a strict constructionist here; militia means militia, not individuals. Your "penumbra of rights" doesn't apply to the second amendment.

I wonder why I bother to reply as all these points have already been addressed and you're merely reasserting misugided, over-inflated allegations. In any case you've just betrayed this "strict constructionist" accusation by claiming the militia originally referred to able-bodied males. You do realize that the dynamics of warfare have changed, yes? Are you familiar with the national guard. Do you see how this is consistent with evolving standards?

But when you get to abortion, it's another story. Now Cain the strict constructionist becomes Cain the living constitutionalist. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, but you have examined the Constitution under a powerful microscope and discovered it does indeed guarantee the right to abortion.

Again, in the broader philosophical sense it doesn't matter to me what the U.S. Constitution says anymore than what another country's constitution says. The Constitution does not say anything about the government listening to someone's telephone conversations or sifting through our e-mail. The fundamental idea -- the importance of privacy -- is what's crucial. Is birth control (Douglas originally used his psychedelic phrase in Griswold) a matter of personal conscience? Or, is there a relevant state interest? It would be impossible for the framers of the Constitution to foresee all of the specific developments that could take place over the course of hundreds of years, and anyone who takes the ideas of freedom and justice seriously will immediately reject such narrow constructions because it leads to ancestral tyranny.

[snip reiteration of an empty accusation]

Quite familliar with it; I rather like using it. It's a tool of argument - not a fallacy.

My oh my. Now you're sounding like the president -- you're saying something as if you're the first to person to think of it. *Pounding the dais to punctuate his words: "Security is really important." Where did I say or suggest a "fallacy"? Where? This reminds me of an argument I once had with a cheater. I identified the genetic fallacy and then he spent three paragraphs defining the genetic fallacy -- as if no one had previously mentioned it.

[Your unnecessary explanation has therefore been snipped]

I like this tool. It enables me to ask, "If abortion is a right under the 'living constitution' theory, then could gun ownership also be a right under the same theory?" It was a carefully baited hook, and you greedily gobbled it down, forcing you into the position of being a strict constructionist vis a vis the second amendment, and rejecting strict constructionism vis a vis abortion. What do you call someone who jettisons his principles the moment he finds them inconvenient?

Oh, is that what you think you were doing? Now you're making a rather elementary category mistake. You did NOT ask if gun ownership can be reconciled with "living constitution theory". I specificially asked: "Are you arguing for a potential privacy rationale for gun ownership?" (Emphasis added)

To which you (stupidly) answered: "Why not? Not every gun ends up killing someone. Every abortion does."

And then I answered as to why that's implausible. Your intellectual mendacity knows no bounds -- but I can't say I'm the least bit surprised you would trumpet this as some kind of clever victory.

 

[BPSCG]

I wonder why I bother to reply

You're not the only one...

as all these points have already been addressed and you're merely reasserting misugided, over-inflated allegations. In any case you've just betrayed this "strict constructionist" accusation by claiming the militia originally referred to able-bodied males. You do realize that the dynamics of warfare have changed, yes? Are you familiar with the national guard. Do you see how this is consistent with evolving standards?

The definition of a militia has changed over the centuries, and thus, maybe the justification for the second amendment. But the amendment is still there. If you think it is obsolete, then start a petition to have it revoked or re-written. But until it's been revoked or re-written, it's still the law of the land, whether you like it or not.

Again, in the broader philosophical sense it doesn't matter to me what the U.S. Constitution says anymore than what another country's constitution says.

I submit that what the US Constitution says may matter less to you than what another country's constitution says:

I mean, it's an outlandish idea. This American phenomenon (and again, it comes from a vocal minority) -- the senselessness of it all -- is evident when we poll the beliefs of our slightly more enlightened neighbors across the Atlantic.

Now, why do you suppose we have our own constitution when our neighbors across the Atlantic are more enightened? The reason I live in the US is because my parents didn't like the way things were run by our more enlightened neighbors across the Atlantic. I submit that most Americans are here for similar reasons. Now you are saying, "Never mind that; we are senseless and our neighbors across the Atlantic are more enlightened, so we should do things their way."

My oh my. Now you're sounding like the president -- you're saying something as if you're the first to person to think of it.

You asked me if I was familiar with a method of argument that I was clearly familiar with. Hence my explanation.

Where did I say or suggest a "fallacy"? Where?

Then what was your purpose in asking if I was familiar with something I was obviously familiar with, in what struck me as an accusatory tone?

Oh, is that what you think you were doing? Now you're making a rather elementary category mistake. You did NOT ask if gun ownership can be reconciled with "living constitution theory".

You're right; what I asked was why you are a strict constructionist when it comes to the second amendment, but a living constitutionalist when it comes to abortion rights. I'm not so much trying to tie the two together as I am trying to find out why you invoke different principles of constitutional interpretation depending on the issue.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't know. I don't mind people having guns. I do think that there should be more control, at least in my country, for gun ownership. But this belief could be based on false assumptions and faulty logic, so I am willing to be educated.



Lmao. I'm an idiot.

May I suggest you read Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment? It's pretty long, but covers a lot of facets of the debate.

 

[Yjacket]

This thread certainly has spend a lot of time away from what the thread parent wanted, as least as I interpret the opening post.

First I would like to deal with a couple of remarks that run like

As I recall we were unanimous in agreeing guns were bad and should be banned.

I sort of doubt the validity of that and other similar statements.

So should firearms be banned or not. First of all simply put our, in the US that is, efforts to ban narcotics has not been a roaring success in spite of spending billions of taxpayer dollars every year. What makes you think that we would be any more successful with firearms?

Secondly we have to slide back a few decades in American History and realize that we amended the US Constitution to outlaw the making, importation, and possession of alcoholic beverages. Again, not something that was exactly a successful effort and resulted in yet another amendment to cancel the effort. So since we could not stop the illegal manufacturing and smuggling of alcoholic beverages what makes you think we can stop the illegal manufacturing and smuggling of firearms?

The same illegal phenomena can be noted about smugglers bringing in exotic and sometime endangered animals. We are not managing to stop them completely. And smuggling people into the country is going quite well also whether they walk across one of the borders or come in shipping containers. But the firearm control advocates would have us believe that firearms could be stopped at the border.

My point here is simply that were there is a demand for a commodity, banned or not, someone will meet that demand. Criminals will always want firearms and there will be someone to meet that demand either by smuggling or illegal manufacturing.

I have noted several posts specifying that the author did not want to ban firearms but wanted some controls on the purchase of firearms. Well actually we have that in the US - Just a brief outline of the requirements of the 1968 Gun Control Act as amended.
It is against the law for those under 21 to purchase or possess a handgun. (There are some exemptions listed for possession such as under the supervision of a qualified adult.)
It is against the law for those under 18 to purchase a long barreled firearm.
It is against the law for someone with a felony record to purchase or possess a firearm. (Actually this has been amended to include some misdemeanor crimes also.)
It is against the law for someone dishonorably discharged from the military service to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is against the law for someone with mental problems to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is against the law for an illegal alien to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is against the law for someone who has denounced his/her US Citizenship to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is against the law for a substance abuser to purchase or possess a firearm.
It is against the law for someone not holding an FFL to purchase a firearm in state A for resale in state B.
It is against the law for someone to purchase for or deliver a firearm to anyone who does not have the qualifications to make the purchase themselves.

And the last but certainly not unimportant. Walk into a store to purchase a firearm and you will complete a couple of forms for the holder of the Federal Firearms License and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will review the transaction before handover of the purchase is made. FBI must approve of the purchase in other words. BTW, these regulations are applicable in all States and Territories of the US so please don't visit the foolishness of weak state laws. So what other controls would someone like to see added to the list above?

 

[elaine]

yjacket,

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Lothian was joking in that post.

My earlier comment was said jokingly, but I really do have a CCW permit, so obviously, no I don't want guns banned. It would be pointless to do so.