Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:00 AM
BrianDime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 25
I have this discussion, in various forms, on a fairly regular basis with one of my more conservative friends. At one point, I asked him "What would you do if a properly approved amendment to the constitution was voted in that made it clear that there was no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment?" His was response was that it would then be time for armed revolution.

Clearly, he is firmly in the "Articulation of preexisting, natural rights" camp. I think, though, that there may be room for discussion about the idea that our Constitution is an attempt to codify preexisting rights, and so the particular language used is (or is not) an accurate translation of an idea into text. At that point, it kind of becomes a question of "Is the natural right that all individual should be allowed to bear arms" or not. This argument should, for the most part, ignore the wording of the Constitution, as the words clearly don't matter if you take the "natural rights" approach and any shortcoming in the language are just that, and do not represent an actual limitation on the natural right to bear arms.
  #52  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:39 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDime View Post
I have this discussion, in various forms, on a fairly regular basis with one of my more conservative friends. At one point, I asked him "What would you do if a properly approved amendment to the constitution was voted in that made it clear that there was no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment?" His was response was that it would then be time for armed revolution.
This would see to make any argument he has that uses the Constitution as a part of his argument moot, since he clearly doesn't actually care about what the Constitution says, only that he gets to keep his guns.
  #53  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:51 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This would see to make any argument he has that uses the Constitution as a part of his argument moot, since he clearly doesn't actually care about what the Constitution says, only that he gets to keep his guns.
To which 2nd A defenders would reply, "It's my natural right to have a gun!".

I'd be curious to ask the question, if I thought I'd get an honest answer, about whether they would choose revolution if the natural rights of liberty were taken from some identifiable minority of the population.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #54  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:38 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
To which 2nd A defenders would reply, "It's my natural right to have a gun!".

I'd be curious to ask the question, if I thought I'd get an honest answer, about whether they would choose revolution if the natural rights of liberty were taken from some identifiable minority of the population.
Ever since I was a kid learning about the Underground Railroad, Id always thought to myself that, hey, never mind what the law was back then; I sure hope Id have chosen to do my part even risking my life to get those slaves out of there. I guess that was also when I was learning about folks who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany, which also struck me as something worth risking ones life to do if and when the law comes down on a minority like that. (Am I answering your question right?)
  #55  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:43 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
It should embarrass the right to claim the virtue of sovereignty with respect to gun rights, while historically and presently denying sovereignty to women, minorities and LGBTQs. Fortunately, the left has successfully used reason to change critical mass opinion on the latter. I have good reason to hope that in time it will be equally successful on the former.

You may like to pretend that the right was always for universal sovereign rights for all, but you have no right to do so in light of all the evidence (philosophy) to the contrary. In the spirit of this OP, the right should at least be honest in admitting that their appreciation for sovereignty is really about: 1) their personal right to gun ownership, and, 2) having to extend the same consideration to progressive issues.
The historical denying of rights to anyone is an embarrassment. At least at the point in history in which revolutions against the established political orders were justified in part by making an appeal to intrinsic human rights.

Now, in the present, I am not sure who is proposing that we as a society should take rights away from women, minorities, or the LG+ crew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think gun debates are as futile as abortion debates. The problem is that the opposing sides disagree on the basic facts. With guns, one side believes that there is a God-given natural right to own guns and that the first half of the second amendment should be sharpied out of existence. The other side (mine) recognizes no individual right to bear arms, that right is valid only in the context of an organized militia or in modern times, the National Guard. With abortion, one side believes that a zygote is a human, the other does not. The sides will never agree on the basic facts, so any discussion just makes people angry and doesn't change any minds.
These aren't disagreement on facts. These are disagreement on opinions and definitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The specific Belief is that there is a natural, fundamental, God-given right to gun ownership, overriding any other rights held by anyone else, despite it not being found in any of the world's major moral or philosophical or theological codes, or even in history before the last few decades. That makes it, as the OP says, inarguable to those who adhere to it.

The Belief for abortion is that life starts at the moment of joining of two cells, going immediately from zero to full, and furthermore takes complete precedence over the life of the woman (or "host body", as she's sometimes called). That isn't in any of the Scriptures its proponents claim to base their belief upon, either.

The Fight Against Ignorance is sadly limited to the ability of "the reality-based community" to get them to recognize and acknowledge what their arguments are based upon. But we have to do what we can.
It's derived from the so-called right of self defense. Ultimately, there are NO rights. Only "rights" that we can get others to accept through force or reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Well, out with it then. Is the idea that sovereignty is derived from the governed anachronistic to the left, or isn't it? Why the wimpy "may" construction to your conjecture? And who exactly are these leftists? Because it kinda sounds like you are accusing these unidentified people of supporting dictatorships. Or what, exactly?
Not dictatorships per se. But the supremacy of the federal government when the left is in power.
  #56  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:43 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Ever since I was a kid learning about the Underground Railroad, Id always thought to myself that, hey, never mind what the law was back then; I sure hope Id have chosen to do my part even risking my life to get those slaves out of there. I guess that was also when I was learning about folks who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany, which also struck me as something worth risking ones life to do if and when the law comes down on a minority like that. (Am I answering your question right?)
I think a more applicable question would be "Would you start an armed revolution if an Amendment passed that stated Muslims were not allowed to legally own guns?"
  #57  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:48 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Now, in the present, I am not sure who is proposing that we as a society should take rights away from women, minorities, or the LG+ crew.
You realize that a key plank of the Republican Platform rejects the definition of marriage that is NOT one man and one woman and seeks to ensure laws and regulations move to define marriage as "one man and one woman"?

I'm fairly certain that is proposing that rights be taken away from gay couples.
  #58  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Not the point, which is that any debate about the 2nd Amendment is a waste of time if you already believe that you have the right to your weaponry no matter what it says.
Any debate about the 1st Amendment is a waste of time if you already believe that you have the right to your words no matter what you say.
  #59  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Any debate about the 1st Amendment is a waste of time if you already believe that you have the right to your words no matter what you say.
Thanks for your input??
  #60  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Again, this isn't about good debate, bad debate or effective debate.
This is about dishonest debate, specifically about arguing on and on about the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, then declaring much later that it doesn't matter anyway because you've got a superlegal right to your weapons no matter what the 2nd says.
See, this is where you are totally wrong. First of all the Gun grabbers debate from a position of glorious ignorance- and are even proud of it. They dont know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, that a bolt action can be fired just about as fast a a full auto, and the difference between calibres. They want to just ban something, even if they cant define what that thing is.

They also think that the National Gd is still the militia.

Most of the Gun grabbers debates on the 2nd revolve around details of the comma, and what the Militia clause is. They think they have telling, critical , winning points about "well organized' and a comma and the militia clause- while in reality they just arent Constitutional scholars.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a individual right, and that the right to defend your self, your home and your family has nothing whatsoever to do with the Militia clause, a comma or "well regulated". So, any debate by armchair amateurs over the Militia clause, a comma or "well regulated" is pointless. The Law and the right to defend your self has moved on. It's done. It may not be 'dishonest, but it's pointless. That ship has sailed and anyone who thinks the militia clause limits a individual sright to own a gun to defend themselves is being dishonest. It's over dude.

What can be debated?:

Should the Second be repealed? (Not gonna happen)

What limitations can and should be put upon guns after Heller?

That's a solid debate. See, SCOTUS has said "assault weapon" bans are Ok. So, should we ban assault weapons? What are assault weapons? Would such a ban do anything significant?

There are a number of other things which can be debated under the way the Supreme court has ruled.

But arguing that Heller is a bad decision because it wasnt unanimous (Few great decisions are), or that it was political (they all are), etc is indeed dishonest debate.


So, yes OP, I agree, there's been lots of dishonest debate here- but not on the side you think.
  #61  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
...
Here I am discussing the fine points of Constitutional law for pages and pages, and in the end the other guy suddenly turns it into a religious discussion. ...
Well, see- you are not a Constitutional law scholar. You may think you are discussing the fine points of Constitutional law but in reality you are not, since the Supreme Court- actual Constitutional law experts- have ruled you are wrong.

If you think the militia clause limits the rights of a individual to own a gun for self/home defense you are simply deluding yourself into thinking you know more Law that a Supreme Court Justice.
  #62  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
I mean even in Miller the Justices could have simply pointed out there Miller wasnt a member of a Militia, and thereby couldnt own any gun. But no where in Miller is Millers membership in a militia a question.
  #63  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Episcopius View Post
When the 2nd amendment was written, did people BRING THEIR OWN GUNS to militias, or were they issued guns BY the militia?

I don't really know, but I would imagine they brought their own firearms, unlike today where military issues the guns.

Mostly brought their own, some were issued.
  #64  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:04 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I mean even in Miller the Justices could have simply pointed out there Miller wasnt a member of a Militia, and thereby couldnt own any gun. But no where in Miller is Millers membership in a militia a question.
As a quick aside, if I may, you lost a great opportunity here by not using "mentioned" instead of "a question"
  #65  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This would see to make any argument he has that uses the Constitution as a part of his argument moot, since he clearly doesn't actually care about what the Constitution says, only that he gets to keep his guns.
And I dont see that argument much, if ever here.

That's a straw man until and when someone here makes that point.
  #66  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:13 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And I dont see that argument much, if ever here.

That's a straw man until and when someone here makes that point.
That was a response to a post that described someone making that exact point. Not as a response to anyone here.
  #67  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:51 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Any debate about the 1st Amendment is a waste of time if you already believe that you have the right to your words no matter what you say.
The 1st amendment is a target as well.
  #68  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:41 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,853

Moderating


Trying to keep this thread focused, though I'm not sure if I can provide actionable constraints.

This thread is about debate tactics, not the underlying arguments of those tactics. Of course, given the nature of this thread, gun-related issues provide context to the discussion, but please set aside discussion about any particular underlying argument.

For example, rehashing SCOTUS rulings is off topic, but discussing the nature of SCOTUS rulings as a tool in argument is not. Whether the 2nd amendment should be repealed is off topic, but discussing whether repeal of the 2nd amendment is a viable, valid, and/or effective tactic is not off topic. Whether someone would start an armed revolution after certain criteria are met is off topic, but discussing whether armed revolution is a viable tactic in negotiating a particular outcome is not.

It's a fine line to walk, but I'm going to try.

[/moderating]
  #69  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:34 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There have been an uncountable number of 2nd Amendment debates through the years(7.2 septillion on this board alone) about the meanings of "militia", "arms", "well regulated" etc., but in my personal opinion these debates are not being argued in good faith by those actually believe that it doesn't really matter how the 2nd Amendment is finally interpreted because they have a right to whatever weaponry they think they need (Natural Law, Natural Rights, God-Given Rights etc.) and 2nd Amendment be damned.
I don't see that as a contradiction at all let alone 'dishonest'.

Most people believe there is a natural right to free expression in some form. It doesn't render all their detailed arguments about what the first amendment means in practice 'dishonest'.

And the 9th Amendment itself explicitly introduces the concept of a 'parallel track' of rights not enumerated ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). There's likewise no logical basis to say that rights which *are* enumerated would disappear if they had not been enumerated.

And it's particularly discordant for the generally left leaning pro gun control side to talk about their 'facts' v other side's 'beliefs' on guns when the same people mainly assert entirely non-enumerated right to redefine marriage from the traditional one man/one woman formula, or the right to abortion. Those are obviously beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with beliefs. Many questions are matters of belief, and marriage definition, abortion, gun and speech rights are all examples.

But since the Constitution does mention speech and gun rights, it's only natural and appropriate to debate what the relevant passages mean or should be held to mean. Which again you can't do for rights which aren't enumerated at all. That doesn't somehow make marriage definition or abortion debates inherently more 'honest' than speech or gun rights debates.

The principal two 'inherent problems in 2A discussions' are IMO different than yours:
1) discussion of repeal and 'what if's' following repeal when repeal of the 2A is as close to 100% 'not gonna happen' as something could politically be.
2) federal gun control in the US could be made far stricter without changing or repealing the 2nd amendment, if there were the votes. I realize there is always a secondary issue of what future judges could find unconstitutional with 2A that they couldn't without it...but that's back to point 1). But it probably makes more sense IMO before focusing so much on 2A from pro-control POV to wait until there are actually major laws which could pass nationally but have been found unconstitutional under 2A. As it is there are loads of restrictive laws in various states and localities which have not been found unconstitutional but which can't be enacted nationally for lack of votes, besides total lack of votes to pass them in various other states. That's not directly about the 2A. And going the other way, which are the major gun laws passed nationally in the US then overturned based on the 2A? I don't know of any. Or even the laws a reasonable person could say would pass Congress except House and Senate members are afraid the laws would be overturned based on 2A? I can't think of any examples of that either.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-11-2019 at 03:36 PM.
  #70  
Old 09-11-2019, 04:13 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
If somehow a constitutional amendment was passed that explicitly made abortion illegal, would pro-choice women shrug their shoulders and say "what can you do?"? Or would they scream that they didn't care if all the men and 2/3 of the women of the USA supported the amendment, that reproductive freedom and control of their bodies was a fundamental right; the law, the Constitution, and anyone else's opinion be damned?

American society is caught somewhere between libertarianism and Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. On multiple issues you have people saying "what I do is none of your damn business", and the others replying "oh yes it is". Guns vs. gun control. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life. Free Speech vs. banning Hate Speech. Property rights vs. Conservation. Free Enterprise vs. Social Welfare. And probably others, all about the same fundamental dilemma: where to draw the balance between the individual and society.
  #71  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:13 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
just some reasonable controls like waiting periods, safety regulations, showing that you can responsibly exercise the right, things like that.
Are you talking about the right to own a gun or the right to procreate?
  #72  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That was a response to a post that described someone making that exact point. Not as a response to anyone here.
Still a straw man.

Come back when somebody posts it here. bring pie.
  #73  
Old 09-11-2019, 05:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Trying to keep this thread focused, though I'm not sure if I can provide actionable constraints.

This thread is about debate tactics, not the underlying arguments of those tactics. Of course, given the nature of this thread, gun-related issues provide context to the discussion, but please set aside discussion about any particular underlying argument.

....

It's a fine line to walk, but I'm going to try.

[/moderating]
Since it started with the OP poisoning the well, this won't end well.
  #74  
Old 09-11-2019, 08:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Still a straw man.

Come back when somebody posts it here. bring pie.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a "straw man" argument means?

And I'll come back when someone posts the same argument, whether by a person on this board or someone off-board that a member of this board heard.
  #75  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:17 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 653
One can consider the ratification debates on 2A and the drafts that were written and revised before the final version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...e_Constitution

Apparently, three things concerned framers:

- the individual right to bear arms
- the right of states to form militias
- to keep the standing army small, the right of the government to use the militias to supplement forces against various threats

Notice, then, that the claim that 2A had nothing to do with individual rights, militias, or regulated militias are contradicted by framers who debated on the statement as it was drafted several times to gain compromise.

There were other issues to consider, such as some framers remembering how the British tried to encourage slaves to rebel.

My sense, then, is that what should be a common law right to bear arms was made part of the Bill of Rights because some wanted assurance that the government (state or otherwise) could never act in the same way as the British, as they believed.

Others wanted state militias to be maintained because they did not trust the federal government, and they also needed to maintain internal control, such as dealing with slaves.

Still others wanted to make sure that the standing army remained small, and that meant using regulated militias to supplement it in times of war.

With Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, two of the three goals of 2A gained fruition. With the Militia Acts, all able-bodied males of a certain age range (blacks were included in a subsequent Act) were forced to undergo military service regulated by the fed. gov't (given Art. 1 Sec. 8).

The problem is that as time went by, increasing population and industrialization led to the need for law enforcement systems rather than state militias. Increasing modernization in military forces led to larger standing armies and more specialization. And increasing sophistication in small arms led to more need for regulation.

With that, the country eventually had police forces, the National Guard and conscription, and gun control that varied across states.
  #76  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:39 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,853

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
One can consider the ratification debates on 2A and the drafts that were written and revised before the final version:
See the note in post #68. This post is debating the actual underlying issues, not the tactics themselves.

[/moderating]
  #77  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:39 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I agree with the OP, virtually no American today buys or owns guns thinking "I need to become part of a well-regulated militia." They do it for self-defense, or sport, or hunting, or some other motive, but it sure isn't for the 2nd Amendment.
I am astounded that anyone can read the text and think "militia" is a requirement and not just one reason.

I think this reading is incorrect, but I will not try to pre-empt those who disagree by labeling them as dishonest.
  #78  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:08 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 551
Second amendment rights have been eroded by courts- generally very liberal ones- allowing what should be obviously unconstitutional encroachments. A recent example is Peruta vs. San Diego County; the Ninth Circuit allowed to stand local and state laws in San Diego, California, one which which forbids open carry, and another forbidding concealed carry, with the result that arms may not be legally borne. This chipping away at a basic, enumerated right has been only slowed, not stopped, by Heller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Thanks for your input??
Do you really not see the parallel?

Last edited by sps49sd; 09-12-2019 at 01:12 AM.
  #79  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:13 AM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,272
The bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of the human rights that Americans possess. In fact, the bill of rights says so itself in the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe self defense to be an obvious and inherent human right. Further, I believe that such a right implies access to weapons which are appropriate for personal defense, like those that police officers carry, for example, for self defense.

Additionally, lack of access to weapons that can be wielded without significant physical strength or fighting ability is discriminatory. Sure, as a reasonably young, able bodied man, I've at least got a fighting chance with my fists or a baseball bat. But am I going to tell a woman half my size that she should be able to fight off any attackers with her bear hands?

I also believe, sincerely, that it's obvious that the second amendment specifically protects an individual right to own and bear arms. In fact, I think this is so obvious that arguments to the contrary are necessarily in bad faith. Trying to twist the idea that the second amendment is a power granted to the states is utterly wrong and utterly contrary to the way that rights, powers, "the people", states, and related language is used in other parts of the constitution. The idea that the national guard, created over 100 years later, and ultimately under the ultimate command of the federal armed forces, fulfills this role, is ludicrous.

Now - you can sincerely believe that the second amendment means what it says, but it's outdated - but then we have a constitutional process to handle such a thing, amendments. Deciding that a basic human right, and one specifically enshrined in the constitution, just isn't relevant anymore and we can freely violate it is certainly against the spirit of the constitution, the letter of the constitution, and in general sets a dangerous precedent.

So I believe that the second amendment clearly and unambiguously protects the right to own and bear arms, but I also believe that, absent the second amendment, such a right, as part of the right of self defense, exists anyway. It's nice that both end up arriving in the same place - it makes things much less legally ambiguous.

I would say that the OP is not only wrong, but the opposite of right - I've also participated in countless gun debates, and those who argue against the right to bear arms are usually arguing in bad faith. They attempt to distort the obvious truth of the intent of the founding fathers and what's actually written in the constitution because they believe that guns are bad or that that part of the constitution is unsuitable or outdated in a modern society, but they knowingly distort the truth and argue in bad faith to try to justify that the constitution never meant that at all.

I'm not saying that those who argue for gun control generally argue in bad faith - I'm saying that specifically on the issue of whether or not the second amendment means what it obviously means they do.
  #80  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:01 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I would say that the OP is not only wrong, but the opposite of right...
I suppose that was supposed to be some variation of "not even right", but it comes out as the equivalent of "Not only does 2+2=4, it also equals 3+1!"
I am sorry that you think that someone who has an opposing few of such matters is arguing in bad faith, because that certainly implies that those who do are being deliberately dishonest
Quote:
I've also participated in countless gun debates, and those who argue against the right to bear arms are usually arguing in bad faith. They attempt to distort the obvious truth of the intent of the founding fathers and what's actually written in the constitution because they believe that guns are bad or that that part of the constitution is unsuitable or outdated in a modern society, but they knowingly distort the truth and argue in bad faith to try to justify that the constitution never meant that at all.
In fact, it doesn't just imply it-it says it plain and simple. It says that I know that what you believe to be true is actually true, and that I know that what I claim to believe is actually false.
If I am reading your response wrong, please correct me.
  #81  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:43 AM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,272
I didn't use the word imply so I'm not sure I understand your question. I thought I was pretty clear. I feel like "are usually" is a fair assessment. It's hard to know for sure that someone is acting in bad faith, but it very often is likely the case in these instances.
  #82  
Old 09-12-2019, 04:53 AM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I am sorry that you think that someone who has an opposing few of such matters is arguing in bad faith, because that certainly implies that those who do are being deliberately dishonest
Isn't that the fundamental premise of your OP and your characterization of some people who engage in 2ndA/RKBA debate?

Not a syllable in reply to my #28? I specifically addressed your premise and points.
  #83  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:38 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
And it's particularly discordant for the generally left leaning pro gun control side to talk about their 'facts' v other side's 'beliefs' on guns when the same people mainly assert entirely non-enumerated right to redefine marriage from the traditional one man/one woman formula, or the right to abortion. Those are obviously beliefs.
The rights to equal protection and due process are most certainly enumerated.

Quote:
1) discussion of repeal and 'what if's' following repeal when repeal of the 2A is as close to 100% 'not gonna happen' as something could politically be.
In a discussion about what we should do, that is not a useful argument.

Quote:
2) federal gun control in the US could be made far stricter without changing or repealing the 2nd amendment, if there were the votes.
There is widespread public support. The lack of congressional votes is due to perversion of democracy, not democracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I am astounded that anyone can read the text and think "militia" is a requirement and not just one reason.
But it's the only one they thought needed to be mentioned. Why do you think that is?
  #84  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:00 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
...

(sps49sd) I am astounded that anyone can read the text and think "militia" is a requirement and not just one reason.

But it's the only one they thought needed to be mentioned. Why do you think that is?
Are we proceeding with you understanding that the militia clause is a reason, not a requirement?

Last edited by sps49sd; 09-12-2019 at 09:01 AM.
  #85  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:11 AM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They dont know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, that a bolt action can be fired just about as fast a a full auto, and the difference between calibres.
A bolt action can be fired just as fast as as a full-auto? Now I can plink off rounds about as quickly with a bolt action Lee-Enfield as quickly as I can normally fire a semi-auto, and I can bumpfire a semi-auto as fast as a full-auto using nothing more fancy than my belt loop. But a bolt action fired as fast as a full-auto? I've got to see this.
  #86  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:14 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Are we proceeding with you understanding that the militia clause is a reason, not a requirement?
The question was to you.
  #87  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:32 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,853

Moderating


I made an attempt to keep this on track with post#68, but I think that may have been too fine a line to walk. Perhaps a more generalized debate tactic thread could be started without being encumbered by the umbrella of 2nd amendment discussions, but this isn't it.

That being said, how many threads on general second amendment discussions shall we have at one time? One less as I'm closing this one. This other thread was active first so feel free to post there.

[/moderating]
Closed Thread

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 03:33 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 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017