Militia question 1
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2nd amendment issues
CFLarsen said:
You apparently don't think it's possible for people to talk about God metaphorically with regards to rights. If they're woo-woos, then Stephen Hawking is, too. I think that neither of them are woo-woos, and you're just a lying bigot trying to avoid dealing with something damaging to your preconceived notions.
</marquee>c0rbin said:
It could have. However, that would also mean that the word "rights" also were meant metaphorically.
c0rbin said:
I have no idea how people were using caps in those days. Do you?
c0rbin said:
Possibly because god and creator mean the same?
shanek said:
Bile aside, you are walking on thin ice here. If God was meant metaphorically, then everything else could have been as well.
This is similar to creationists selecting which part of the bible should be taken literally.
Against my better judgement I will respond.
Originally posted by Hawk one
Responding to Cynical's latest post:
The first fact is of incomplete. The full truth is that in the US context, people are currently having a right by law to keep firearms, with very few restrictions.
Wrong. There are some 25,000 firearms laws across the US. Contrary to popular belief forms are filed whenever one is purchased from a dealer or across state lines. I want to explore this with you. What made you say "with very few restrictions"? I mean, where does this information come from?
It is of course not to be expected that Claus can change these laws into laws that has far more useful restrictions in it. But he can be one of many voices rasing important questions, such as whether the right to bear arms is one that should be allowed in today's society.
"Useful restrictions", I fear, translate all too often into "obnoxious requirements" that serve to reduce demand for a handgun. With firearms, the "slippery slope" is not a fallacy.
It depends upon whose society you are referring to. Who makes such a determination? You do realize that some of the more obnoxious actions of our government can be framed in exactly the same way as you frame your question regarding firearms. The "greater good" argument is a dangerous one.
In that regard, I have two questions on my own:
1) How does restricting my rights to bear arms, especially handguns, actually infringe on my freedom?
How does restricting any right infringe your freedom? The question, I think, has to be turned around to not put the individual on the defensive. "What is the benefit to me to having a given freedom restricted?" That puts the onus on the government, as it must be.
The reason I'm pointing out handguns should be pretty clear: They are made for the purpouse of harming other human beings. A rifle or shotgun can be used for hunting, thus giving it another purpouse. But a handgun is only meant to be used against other humans. (I admit that some people will use handguns for using, but such people are, to put it mildly, unprofessional about it).
I take extreme issue with your contentions. I own a plethora of handguns and I have never carried one, ever. I have dispatched a rabid squirral once and personal protection does not really enter into it for me. I collect and I shoot at a range. Again, why do you say that handguns are meant to only be used against people? That is simply flat out wrong. A google search will give you 12,000 hits for "handgun hunting", there are magazines, places that teach it and so on. Your basic contention is just plain wrong.
I live in Norway, I'm not allowed to own a handgun until I'm 21 and have been a member of an approved target practice club. I can of course start a membership in the target practice club before that, I just can't own my own handgun. And I have no problems with this. Because this will help ensure that I have fully learned how to maintain a handgun, how to handle it, and not the least how to properly store it so that it can't easily be used, not to mention abused.
I can only speak for the state of Connecticut. You must be 21 to own a handgun and you must have passed a safety course. I do not know what belonging to a club has to do with it but I can assure you that using and maintaining a firearm of any type is not rocket science, and certainly does not require any government "help". Using it regularly, as opportunity permits, is the best way of learning. Just like any other hobby.
2) Will owning a gun actually make you safer?
Back to the US context, lots of people claim that they buy a gun for personal protection, usually keeping it near their own bed. But is this feeling of safety real, or just imagined?
Well, in most of the cases where such guns are used at all, the majority of uses will be either
a) An accidental misfiring. At best, this will lead to material damage, at worst, someone will get killed.
b) The gun is, along with other stuff, stolen during a burglary. Because most burglaries happen during daytime and without people being home. And as it is, it can even be used against the lawful owner of the gun during the burglary, which of course isn't the best thing to do.
And after this, in mere 2% of the cases where a gun bought for personal safety is used, it is used in accordance with the original intention: Stopping a burglar.
And if you want to prove me wrong, telling me that guns make people safer, then answer me this: What will make the insurance companies give you a discount for a house and inventory insurance? A burglary alarm, or a gun?
This has and will be discussed by Shanek. Suffice it to say that areas where carry permits are easier to obtain have lower crime rates. Also consider this mealy mouthed summary of the latest, government sponsered examination of the impact of firearms laws:
What they are saying is "we found no benefit but we don't really like that, being whiney liberal bastards who KNOW what is best for everyone else, so we will damn our findings with faint praise". A cowardly and intellectually dishonest observation on their part. This is from the whiney CDC, BTW.
As for the second fact: You seemingly support to allow people taking advantage of other people by the means of lying, cheating, threatening, and generally being dishonest. Well, lying will of course always remain in the world. So will diseases. And so will death itself. Since death is inevitable, why are you even bothering to live, Cynical? Why not just look at that fact about death, accept it, and then just end it right away, since obviously nothing that you do ever matter, eh?
If you support the right of a person to end his or her life, it is intellectually dishonest to limit the available alternatives. I doubt that anything is more quick or painless than a firearm. Assuming the person has sufficient training, naturally.
snipped the rest cuz it was to Cynical [/B]
Originally posted by Hawk one
Responding to Cynical's latest post:
The first fact is of incomplete. The full truth is that in the US context, people are currently having a right by law to keep firearms, with very few restrictions.
Wrong. There are some 25,000 firearms laws across the US. Contrary to popular belief forms are filed whenever one is purchased from a dealer or across state lines. I want to explore this with you. What made you say "with very few restrictions"? I mean, where does this information come from?
It is of course not to be expected that Claus can change these laws into laws that has far more useful restrictions in it. But he can be one of many voices rasing important questions, such as whether the right to bear arms is one that should be allowed in today's society.
"Useful restrictions", I fear, translate all too often into "obnoxious requirements" that serve to reduce demand for a handgun. With firearms, the "slippery slope" is not a fallacy.
It depends upon whose society you are referring to. Who makes such a determination? You do realize that some of the more obnoxious actions of our government can be framed in exactly the same way as you frame your question regarding firearms. The "greater good" argument is a dangerous one.
In that regard, I have two questions on my own:
1) How does restricting my rights to bear arms, especially handguns, actually infringe on my freedom?
How does restricting any right infringe your freedom? The question, I think, has to be turned around to not put the individual on the defensive. "What is the benefit to me to having a given freedom restricted?" That puts the onus on the government, as it must be.
The reason I'm pointing out handguns should be pretty clear: They are made for the purpouse of harming other human beings. A rifle or shotgun can be used for hunting, thus giving it another purpouse. But a handgun is only meant to be used against other humans. (I admit that some people will use handguns for using, but such people are, to put it mildly, unprofessional about it).
I take extreme issue with your contentions. I own a plethora of handguns and I have never carried one, ever. I have dispatched a rabid squirral once and personal protection does not really enter into it for me. I collect and I shoot at a range. Again, why do you say that handguns are meant to only be used against people? That is simply flat out wrong. A google search will give you 12,000 hits for "handgun hunting", there are magazines, places that teach it and so on. Your basic contention is just plain wrong.
I live in Norway, I'm not allowed to own a handgun until I'm 21 and have been a member of an approved target practice club. I can of course start a membership in the target practice club before that, I just can't own my own handgun. And I have no problems with this. Because this will help ensure that I have fully learned how to maintain a handgun, how to handle it, and not the least how to properly store it so that it can't easily be used, not to mention abused.
I can only speak for the state of Connecticut. You must be 21 to own a handgun and you must have passed a safety course. I do not know what belonging to a club has to do with it but I can assure you that using and maintaining a firearm of any type is not rocket science, and certainly does not require any government "help". Using it regularly, as opportunity permits, is the best way of learning. Just like any other hobby.
2) Will owning a gun actually make you safer?
Back to the US context, lots of people claim that they buy a gun for personal protection, usually keeping it near their own bed. But is this feeling of safety real, or just imagined?
Well, in most of the cases where such guns are used at all, the majority of uses will be either
a) An accidental misfiring. At best, this will lead to material damage, at worst, someone will get killed.
b) The gun is, along with other stuff, stolen during a burglary. Because most burglaries happen during daytime and without people being home. And as it is, it can even be used against the lawful owner of the gun during the burglary, which of course isn't the best thing to do.
And after this, in mere 2% of the cases where a gun bought for personal safety is used, it is used in accordance with the original intention: Stopping a burglar.
And if you want to prove me wrong, telling me that guns make people safer, then answer me this: What will make the insurance companies give you a discount for a house and inventory insurance? A burglary alarm, or a gun?
This has and will be discussed by Shanek. Suffice it to say that areas where carry permits are easier to obtain have lower crime rates. Also consider this mealy mouthed summary of the latest, government sponsered examination of the impact of firearms laws:
What they are saying is "we found no benefit but we don't really like that, being whiney liberal bastards who KNOW what is best for everyone else, so we will damn our findings with faint praise". A cowardly and intellectually dishonest observation on their part. This is from the whiney CDC, BTW.
As for the second fact: You seemingly support to allow people taking advantage of other people by the means of lying, cheating, threatening, and generally being dishonest. Well, lying will of course always remain in the world. So will diseases. And so will death itself. Since death is inevitable, why are you even bothering to live, Cynical? Why not just look at that fact about death, accept it, and then just end it right away, since obviously nothing that you do ever matter, eh?
If you support the right of a person to end his or her life, it is intellectually dishonest to limit the available alternatives. I doubt that anything is more quick or painless than a firearm. Assuming the person has sufficient training, naturally.
snipped the rest cuz it was to Cynical [/B]
Kodiak [/i][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by c0rbin said:
Beautiful retort! A+!
[/QUOTE]Really? Perhaps more than any other animal, we speak of the "spirit" or "will" of horses; wild horses must be "broken" in order to submit to our will. If, by earlier arguments here, the ability to do something is tantamount to the right to do it, it is not too far-fetched to think that these horses have already been expressing their displeasure with our violating their rights to self-determination. You have simply not listened properly.
My question was posed more seriously than your light dismissal would indicate. Arguments here have equated "ability to" with "right to" (perhaps, as Cleopatra suggests, to avoid having to answer the tough questions). If horses have the ability to resist capture and to fight attackers, how is it that you do not apply the same logic to their behavior as to ours? Do you draw the distinction by mere assertion (as Shanek seems to), or is there something more than the ability to do something which makes it a right? If the latter, then what? Thus far, all I have seen are ability=right claims.
BTW, the PETA remark works nicely as an evasion, but does not address my point.
shanek said:
Not ridiculous at all. Hawking is not writing the founding documents by which a nation is created.
shanek said:
Of course not. You have to look at context, always.
Were "rights" meant metaphorically?
If yes, then you have a problem. If no, what parts of the founding documents should be taken literally, and which should be taken metaphorically?
I answered your questions, please answer mine.
shanek said:
I am fairly certain the Hawking does not mean it metaphorically, since he is talking about something that is scientifically verifiable. God, however, is not (at the present).
You have to show that Hawking believes in God. If you cannot, then your point is invalid.
shanek said:
Absolutely not. If Creator is meant metaphorically, then "rights" can also be meant the same way. Please explain why this is not the case.
shanek,
Were "rights" meant metaphorically?
If yes, then you have a problem. If no, what parts of the founding documents should be taken literally, and which should be taken metaphorically?
I answered your questions, please answer mine.
Were "rights" meant metaphorically?
If yes, then you have a problem. If no, what parts of the founding documents should be taken literally, and which should be taken metaphorically?
I answered your questions, please answer mine.
