Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old Yesterday, 11:01 AM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Trying to take that gun from them leaves them feeling exposed to that super-violent, amoral world out there.
Or in a "worst-case" scenario, maybe even Chris Brown.
  #402  
Old Yesterday, 11:19 AM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 853
Guys, you made my point. It's what I meant. Look at animals, they don't know what rights are, they just do what they do. That's the wild and we'll act just like them in it.

Only in societies and governments do rights exist. You can do this and you can't do that, that's the rules we set. None of that are god given.

By the way, we give rights to animals so that they are protected.

Last edited by SigMan; Yesterday at 11:20 AM.
  #403  
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
The usual way I've always understood the intersection of natural law and the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

Natural Law: People have an inherent right to defend themselves and their families, and shouldn't be forced to rely on outside agencies (i.e. police) to do it for them, especially in situations where that protection may be spotty, delayed or ineffective.

<environmental condition>: Guns are the most effective tool for defending oneself- as the saying goes, "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal." In other words, with a pistol in her hand, a 95 lb 90 year old woman is a credible threat to a 270 lb, 6'6" man.

So from there, they interpret the 2nd Amendment as being an integral legal guarantee of being able to defend themselves and their families, even though reading while viewing it through the lens of history doesn't (IMO) really lend the amendment to a personal defense interpretation. Heller notwithstanding.

So if you get someone who is very concerned with personal defense, they're going to attach themselves to the 2nd Amendment like a limpet with something to prove.

Personally, I've found that the people who are most concerned about personal defense are usually not the types who you'd expect. I'd have expected women who have to be in relatively dangerous areas to be the most bullish about being able to defend themselves. But nope, it's always the grown white guys who live in the far suburbs who make the most noise about that. I don't think it's racism, per se, but they seem to have a worldview that the world is overrun with swarms of violent crooks out there to steal your stuff, rape your women, and kill you, if not for the continuous presence of the police, and in the odd moments when the cops aren't nearby, the presence of their trusty pistol/rifle/shotgun. Trying to take that gun from them leaves them feeling exposed to that super-violent, amoral world out there.
Correct to your first two points. I tend to agree with you that viewing through a historical lens, the Second Amendment was not focused on personal self defense, however that is not what Heller said.

Heller said that the right of self-defense predates the Second Amendment and does not depend on the Second Amendment for its existence; that right comes down from the English Common Law that we inherited and used for our own purposes. It is one of those fundamental rights that is intrinsic in our society and one that no proper government, based upon our founding ideals, should intrude upon. The Second Amendment simply gives a legal hook to owning militia weapons.

Contrary to some on my side, I don't believe that Heller was the best written opinion what with its ipse dixit about guns in schools, and its unsatisfying treatment of fully automatic weapons. I'm not saying that the Second must go so far as to permit fully automatic weapons, but if you are going to say it does not, then you have to do better than the "in common use" argument Scalia used when it is blindingly obvious that the reason that these guns are not in common use is because they have been effectively banned for the past 85 years.

It seems that in the Second Amendment context, if a government can unconstitutionally ban, or even steal or destroy a particular type of weapon, then that unlawful action allows a new constitutional floor that legitimizes it.

Let's assume for the purposes of argument that your last point is correct that most people who argue about the right of self defense are self-important tough guys who are overreacting and really have little to worry about. I don't see how that changes things.

Free speech, for example, is not there only to protect the most eloquent and knowledgeable speakers. It is there for less desirable speech as well such as flag burning, wearing "Fuck the Draft" t-shirts, and having KKK marches in town. I don't think it is proper to argue or suggest that perhaps we should not have self-defense or free speech because some people don't use their rights in the correct fashion.
  #404  
Old Yesterday, 12:01 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
Guys, you made my point. It's what I meant. Look at animals, they don't know what rights are, they just do what they do. That's the wild and we'll act just like them in it.

Only in societies and governments do rights exist. You can do this and you can't do that, that's the rules we set. None of that are god given.

By the way, we give rights to animals so that they are protected.
Do you believe that a debate on having a policy of killing all brown people v. not killing all brown people is just a societal construct where each side has competing points? In your worldview, what baseline do you use to suggest that one is better than the other?
  #405  
Old Yesterday, 12:03 PM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 853
Hey, nobody's perfect.
  #406  
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Do you believe that a debate on having a policy of killing all brown people v. not killing all brown people is just a societal construct where each side has competing points? In your worldview, what baseline do you use to suggest that one is better than the other?
You keep repeating this as though you think it somehow serves your argument, whatever that is.

If I had to guess what the purpose of this argument is, you're claiming that humans cannot distinguish right from wrong, and won't know whether killing browns is good or bad without external help, e.g. guidance from God or the FFs.

Is the inference supposed to be that we're lucky God (or the FFs or XX*) told us "guns are good" since otherwise we'd be at the mercy of ordinary mortals? Mortals unable to know whether killing browns is good or bad and therefore also apt to come to the erroneous conclusion that guns are bad?

And then you throw in "Heller" as though a 5-4 Scotus decision is some magical affirmation of God's Will or Natural Rights or Whatever-the-heck you're talking about.

I'm sure this is a caricature of your position, but I have no idea what your position is.

* - I write "XX" to denote the source of your "natural rights," whatever you conceive It to be. We've been trying to explain, in different ways, that your notion of "natural rights" is confused. (And if you're going to continue on this line, please make up your mind whether the "FF"s were ordinary mortals or had some privileged insight no longer available to today's humans.)
  #407  
Old Yesterday, 01:53 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
NETA: I'm actually rather neutral on the whole question of guns' goodness/badness!

But I find it astounding to listen to gun lovers express their love. Sometimes it seems not entirely unreasonable to conclude that their opinions are not entirely reasonable!
  #408  
Old Yesterday, 02:26 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
You keep repeating this as though you think it somehow serves your argument, whatever that is.

If I had to guess what the purpose of this argument is, you're claiming that humans cannot distinguish right from wrong, and won't know whether killing browns is good or bad without external help, e.g. guidance from God or the FFs.

Is the inference supposed to be that we're lucky God (or the FFs or XX*) told us "guns are good" since otherwise we'd be at the mercy of ordinary mortals? Mortals unable to know whether killing browns is good or bad and therefore also apt to come to the erroneous conclusion that guns are bad?

And then you throw in "Heller" as though a 5-4 Scotus decision is some magical affirmation of God's Will or Natural Rights or Whatever-the-heck you're talking about.

I'm sure this is a caricature of your position, but I have no idea what your position is.

* - I write "XX" to denote the source of your "natural rights," whatever you conceive It to be. We've been trying to explain, in different ways, that your notion of "natural rights" is confused. (And if you're going to continue on this line, please make up your mind whether the "FF"s were ordinary mortals or had some privileged insight no longer available to today's humans.)
I'm not sure how to clarify.

What I am saying is that killing people in society is wrong, not because we have a statute against murder, or a Constitution which says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. I am saying that murder is inherently wrong because that individual has a natural right to life that no proper government can take away from him.

You seem to not subscribe to the natural rights theory. If you do not, then what is the source of your belief in right and wrong such that you can say with confidence that murder is wrong, period. Or is it just that it is wrong because it is the law and that we could legitimately legalize it tomorrow?
  #409  
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
NETA: I'm actually rather neutral on the whole question of guns' goodness/badness!

But I find it astounding to listen to gun lovers express their love. Sometimes it seems not entirely unreasonable to conclude that their opinions are not entirely reasonable!
It's a hobby. Do you have one? Have you not heard a car guy say he "loves" his car? Or a lady say she "loves' her record collection? Or a horsewoman for her horse?(Ok, I get that animals can return love to a extent, so they can be a exception), or a sports fan for his team? That last gets to crazy extremes, no?

My main hobby is table top games, mostly D&D, and sure I "love" playing D&D.
  #410  
Old Yesterday, 02:47 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... I am saying that murder is inherently wrong because that individual has a natural right to life that no proper government can take away from him.

You seem to not subscribe to the natural rights theory. If you do not, then what is the source of your belief in right and wrong such that you can say with confidence that murder is wrong, period. Or is it just that it is wrong because it is the law and that we could legitimately legalize it tomorrow?
I DO have a sense of right and wrong. I do NOT attempt to map this to some "natural rights theory." (Do you have a cite where I can read what that term even means? Is it specific to humans, or are animals also bound to some "natural law"?)

I DO think a person has the right to defend himself and his family. I do NOT jump from that assertion to concluding that every redneck imbecile should have the right to wander through pizza shops with his AR-15 looking for Hillary's slaves.

I DO think there should be a debate about guns and gun control. But I would focus on the objective merits rather than some fictitious interpretation of "natural law", or the existence of the 2A, or a 5-4 Scotus decision, or what some right-winger thinks the FF's might have meant.

Is this all clear? Is my position all so unreasonable? Does it warrant your bemusement about whether I need to read a lawbook to guess whether "killing browns" is good or bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It's a hobby. Do you have one? Have you not heard a car guy say he "loves" his car?
I wrote poorly if I implied that it is wrong for a gun lover to be passionate about his hobby. Hobbyists don't bother me; hunters don't bother me; legitimate self-defense needs, when legal, don't bother me.

It's the one-issue obsession, the nattering about "natural rights", the treatment of guns as a surrogate for penis and/or the Messiah, the bizarre unique-to-America infatuation with "gun rights" that reduce me to exasperation and make me pity the country of my birth.
  #411  
Old Yesterday, 02:57 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I DO have a sense of right and wrong. I do NOT attempt to map this to some "natural rights theory." (Do you have a cite where I can read what that term even means? Is it specific to humans, or are animals also bound to some "natural law"?)
Aristotle

Educate yourself
  #412  
Old Yesterday, 03:02 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

It's the one-issue obsession, the nattering about "natural rights", the treatment of guns as a surrogate for penis and/or the Messiah, the bizarre unique-to-America infatuation with "gun rights" that reduce me to exasperation and make me pity the country of my birth.
I have seen car lovers and sports fans do the same. Yes it is sad, but it's across the spectrum of many male dominated hobbies. And by no means is it unique to America.

Last edited by DrDeth; Yesterday at 03:02 PM.
  #413  
Old Yesterday, 03:22 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have seen car lovers and sports fans do the same. Yes it is sad, but it's across the spectrum of many male dominated hobbies. And by no means is it unique to America.
Hobbies can be silly. My own hobbies may be silly. I disapprove of soccer hooliganism. But ...

Bass fishing. Stamp collecting. Carrying guns around with a round in the chamber and a viscous mentality. Table tennis. Square dancing.

Which item in the above list is different from the others?
  #414  
Old Yesterday, 03:40 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,457
You don't want to be viscous. Guns work best with a light oil, not grease.
  #415  
Old Yesterday, 03:54 PM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
You don't want to be viscous. Guns work best with a light oil, not grease.
hehehehe
  #416  
Old Yesterday, 03:58 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Hobbies can be silly. My own hobbies may be silly. I disapprove of soccer hooliganism. But ...

Bass fishing. Stamp collecting. Carrying guns around with a round in the chamber and a viscous mentality. Table tennis. Square dancing.

Which item in the above list is different from the others?
See, you had to add "a viscous mentality". Football fans are dangerous with a viscous mentality. Street racers-are dangerous with a viscous mentality. Martial arts-are dangerous with a viscous mentality,

And you clearly dont know much about guns when you add "with a round in the chamber ".

Also open carry and Concealed carry practitioners have a lower violent crime rate than the general population.
  #417  
Old Yesterday, 04:06 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And you clearly dont know much about guns when you add "with a round in the chamber ".
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! "Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is."

Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong.
  #418  
Old Yesterday, 04:25 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! "Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is."

Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong.
This post right here shows that you don't know anything about guns. Which is fine, but if you're trying to propose rules or regulations or laws about guns ("People shouldn't be allowed to carry guns around with a round in the chamber! They should have to uncock them first! Otherwise they might go and do a back-flip, and accidentally shoot someone!") you really, really need to educate yourself on the subject.

(There's another thread going on the boards right now which led me to this fun word: ultracrepidarian.)
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #419  
Old Yesterday, 04:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! "Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is."

Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong.
Just as a point of information, Agent Dance-Pop's Glock didn't just "go off". He pulled the trigger (because he is an idiot), and a man was shot in the leg as a result.

Quote:
Tom Reddington, 24, the man who was shot, spoke in court saying he lost his job at an Amazon warehouse following the shooting and may never be able to run again.

"I have done months of physical therapy," Reddington said. "I have sought counseling. However, being in public, especially seeing law enforcement with guns, makes me very uncomfortable."
source

ETA: Agent Dance-Pop's actual name is Chase Bishop. Fuck that guy.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; Yesterday at 04:39 PM.
  #420  
Old Yesterday, 04:49 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Ahem. Vicious. Not viscous.

That is all.
  #421  
Old Yesterday, 06:09 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! "Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is."

Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong.
Glocks do not have manual hammers which may be cocked or uncocked. The hammer is internal. Further, Glocks contain a trigger safety in that a round will not discharge unless your finger or some other object depresses against the trigger.

There is simply no way a Glock will discharge if you are doing back flips.
  #422  
Old Yesterday, 06:32 PM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 853
That's true. Glock also have a firing pin block and only by squeezing the trigger will it release it.

Last edited by SigMan; Yesterday at 06:32 PM.
  #423  
Old Yesterday, 07:58 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! "Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is."

Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong.
You don't seem to remember the incident very well at all.
  #424  
Old Today, 02:11 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Welcome to the Dope. Nobody has offered a single word about #410, in which I laid out my views on the matter of guns. Everybody is eager to point out that vicious was misspelled . (BTW, that's not illiteracy I won the spelling bee 60 years ago it's a type of aphasia.)

And heaven forbid that I should have an opinion on America's obsession with guns if I use the word 'uncock' to refer to removing a chambered round. Obviously nobody would dare post in a Superbowl thread unless they know that the football is 14.5 ounces, inflated to 13 psi with a Patented 3-ply VPU rubber bladder inside the leather panels. Yet here I am; I couldn't name a single hollow-point bullet brand recommended for the Glock, yet have the audacity to wonder if some of the cowboys in FlyoverLand might be as dingbat as an FBI agent.

No hard feelings though. You guys are as lovable as the Three Stooges!
  #425  
Old Today, 02:23 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,825
I'm thinking the Lakers are definitely going to win the Super Bowl this year. I hear they've got a great starting pitcher!
  #426  
Old Today, 02:50 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Welcome to the Dope. Nobody has offered a single word about #410, in which I laid out my views on the matter of guns. Everybody is eager to point out that vicious was misspelled . (BTW, that's not illiteracy I won the spelling bee 60 years ago it's a type of aphasia.)
Then you've been here long enough to recognize pedantic jokes, not at your expense.
  #427  
Old Today, 02:55 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You don't seem to remember the incident very well at all.
It should come as no great surprise to anyone that he's confused about the facts.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; Today at 02:56 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017