Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:46 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Slippery slope fallacy.
how is it a fallacy?
  #152  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:37 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Whose side is James Hodgkinson on? ...
The left side. There's really no reasonable doubt that he was on your side:

Quote:
The FBI identified the gunman who opened fire this morning during a congressional congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, as James T. Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois. The bureau said Hodgkinson was taken to the hospital, where he died.

A Facebook page belonging to a person with that name from the Belleville area contains several posts critical of President Trump. (There is no confirmation that it belongs to the alleged suspect.) In one, Trump is described as a “traitor” who “has destroyed our democracy.” The Facebook account’s banner has an image of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. His profile picture has the U.S. flag with the words: “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: We the People.” He also appeared to maintain a Twitter account, which wasn’t particularly active. His most recent posts urged Democratic senators to filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I know he wasn’t happy with the way things were going, the election results and stuff,” his brother, Michael Hodgkinson, told The New York Times. ...
source



Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... Does that end the claim? ...
Yes, it does. One leftist example is all I need to refute the false claim that "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box."
  #153  
Old 01-12-2019, 12:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll accept it as good enough and drop the matter. Glad you came around.
Not really, we have some difference in language, where you seem to assume that we are represented by James, just because he has left leaning tendencies, but as long as we are in agreement that the violence from the pro-gun control side is an anomaly, and the violence form the pro-gun side is being said to be very, very common, we can call it good enough.
Quote:

This thread wasn't started by a gun owner, threatening to kill anyone who tried to touch his guns, or anything like that. It was started by Velocity, who wrote "I don't own guns and probably never will, but want to understand what the main worry is exactly."
He has been given some frank answers in this thread, but it wasn't gun owners "bringing it up" or trying to "make the threat known". They were responding to a sincere question by Velocity with sincere answers.
I didn't say that is was started by a gun owner, I said specifically what you said, that gun advocates said that if we tried to ban guns, then gun owners would violently resist the democratically passed laws.

If abortion were made illegal, I would resist that at the polls. If immigration were made illegal, I would resist that at the polls. If alcohol or tobacco were made illegal, I would resist that at the polls. Even if anti-discrimination were outlawed, even if minorities rights were stripped, I would only use the constitutionally granted rights to make my opinion known. The only thing that I would even think about resisting with violence would be making voting illegal.

I may gripe, I may complain, I may write my congresscritter and even march in the street, but I will not commit violence because I disagree with the outcome of a fair election.

If gun owners want to gripe and complain and protest, that's absolutely fine, and I would expect that. If they want to refuse to follow the laws that are passed by the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens, then they do not believe in the basic principles of democracy, and it also concerns me that, if it is that well considered by their peers in this thread that they will commit violence because of those laws, then what keeps them from committing violence to affect other laws that they don't like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
It's not a threat, it's risk assessment, for an extremely unlikely hypothetical in a purely acedemic discussion (The 2a will not be repealed in our lifetimes). Even in that, a discussion of potential (and, think, likely) repercussions is completely valid. If this were to happen for real, do you NOT think TPTB would be discussing this?
I do consider the hypothetical to be extremely unlikely, and partly for the reasons that you say. That people know that many gun owners will not respect the laws and turn violent if they were to go for a door to door confiscation is part of the reason that such a thing would only be desired by the furthest extremes of the anti-gun crowd, and considered likely only by a surprisingly substantial portion of gun advocates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
It is a shame this has degenerated into calls of " my side" and "the other side". Those positions make further discussion impossible. A shame, but not surprising.
It's a debate, where you have one side advocating for one position, and the other side advocating for the others. I do not see how a discussion is even possible without having sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Because a ban, or a near-ban, is the only plausible motive to abolish the Second Amendment in the first place. Gun control advocates don't want guns "regulated"- they want the fewest number in civilian hands as possible. Given what gun control laws the antis have pushed and their own statements, what they would enact given the ability would be: no handguns at all beyond a few special rare permits (Olympic target shooters for example); no semi-automatics at all; no gun that can fire more than six rounds without a lengthy reloading process; no guns in the home at all (you'd have to be a member in good standing of a shooting club and store your gun there); in short, the most restrictive gun laws possible that wouldn't make hunting impossible (and I'd bet the antis would then start in on how "unsporting" taking game with guns was).
All of this is hogwash. A gun ban is not the only, or even a plausible motive for removing 2A at all. The main reason for removing 2A is that we cannot have any effective gun laws with it in place.

Removing 2A doesn't suddenly create anti-gun laws, it just makes it possible to have them. Without 2A, you can have a reasonable discussion about how and where guns can be owned and carried, and not run into the constant wall of "But 2A says you can't make that law".

There will always be those who advocate for a total gun ban, but they are a tiny minority, and the only reason that they have any voice in this at all is because their words are magnified by being repeated constantly by the pro-gun advocates in order to make their peers think that such is a common sentiment, while the words of moderates are ignored until the moderates get frustrated by you repeatedly telling them that they are lying about their motives and drop out of the discussion, allowing you to continue with only the most extreme again.

Telling people what their motives are, and accusing them of being liars when they say that those are not their motives is probably the least productive form of debate imaginable, and yet, that is precisely what you do here.

That you can find someone "on my side" that has a more extrme position than the vast majority of moderate does not mean that you have discovered true motivations, it means that you cherry pick quotes from people until you find something that confirms the narrative that you want to tell, but it has nothing at all to do with reality.
Quote:
Fine, let's all become enlightened anti-gunners first, THEN abolish the Second Amendment- not forcing it's abolition on us in the hope that the public will adapt to the new reality.
Well, yeah. It would take a pretty solid majority of voters to support a repeal of 2A. If 2A has been repealed, then we have largely become enlightened pro-gun control'ers. If you are saying that we have to have 100% of people agree before we can do anything I would ask if that is how we should pass any other form of legislation?
Quote:
About whether the Founders were pro-gun? Seriously? One can argue (unconvincingly imho) that the letter of the Second doesn't defend private gun ownership; but does anyone, anywhere claim that the Founders thought that guns ought to be kept out of the hands of the rabble? That ANY American person of influence at the time thought that?
At the time of the writing of 2A, it did not apply to states. States could, and did, pass laws about gun control. 2A itself says that it is to help to maintain a well regulated militia, and who would regulate the militia, the states?

The FF's absolutely felt that states should have control over gun laws, and 2A was only to keep federal hands off of it and allow each state to regulate the militia and arms the way they best saw fit.
Quote:
Unless it's a minority consisting of those privileged few permitted to possess guns, who start throwing their weight around. As has been pointed out before, there's a cognitive disassociation where some people constantly accuse cops (with some justification) of being arrogant, swaggering racist bullies- but nonetheless they maintain that cops should be the only people with guns.
That the government should have a monopoly on the use of force and violence is not a hypocritical stance to have while also saying that the agents of the state, those authorized to use that violence, should be better screened and trained. No cognitive dissonance, just you conflating different perspectives from different people about different subjects, and finding a way to somehow make yourself convinced that you are confused by this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The government wouldn't stand a chance. A government cannot hold territory if enough people object. I give you Poland as proof. It was held by the second most powerful country in the world. A country with thousands and thousands of tanks. Forget tanks, they had thousands and thousands of nukes and yet Poland is now free. Try visiting the country that held Poland under it's power. You can't. It doesn't exist anymore.
Which is why the US is two different countries now, after the south objected to being held territory of the United States, right?

George Washington would object to your statement as he rallied his troops to go quash the whiskey rebellion.

The example you are using is a foreign government occupying another territory, that is entirely different than the government elected by the people occupying the territory of the country it governs. By definition, it is supported by the majority of the people, and those fighting against it are simply terrorists trying to get their way in opposition of the democratic will of the people.
Quote:
The Second Amendment serves many purposes but ultimately it's designed to protect us from ourselves. It allows us individual protection from criminals and it protects us from political oppression. Something the people of China are learning in a very hard way. Everything they do is monitored by a government that will actively suppress them for the crime of opinion. They are now assigning points to citizen's behavior. Read or type anything on the internet that's negative about China and it's points against you. Jay walk in China and it's points against you. If you don't buy enough products from China then it's points against you.
When the criminals have easier access to guns than people do, it does very little to protect us from them, it just makes encounters with criminals much more likely to result in death or injury.

Yor complaints about china are mostly exaggerations, but in any case, it is not a lack of guns that allows the chinese govt to have authoritarian control. That is mainly due to china having historically been quite poor and desperate, and when a govt cam into power that was competent, even if a bit immoral, it was welcomed. China's been doing pretty well on the world stage, and has elevated more of its citizens from poverty to middle class than we have citizens.

This should actually be a lesson to those who support authoritarian principles here in the US, although, strangely, gun advocates and supporters of authoritarian rule are pretty close to a circle on the Venn Diagram.

The difference between democracy and authoritarianism, is that in a democracy, I can be patient, and make my opinion heard, and fight it out at the ballot box. If I lose, I will redouble my efforts in making my opinion heard and fighting it out at the ballot box. In an authoritarian government, I will fight to be in charge, as that is the only way to have my opinion heard. The gun owners who would take up arms against their country due to disagreement with a legally enacted law are advocating authoritarianism, not democracy.
Quote:
It's not just China. Countries like the UK are now prosecuting people for hate speech. It's a slippery slope when your opinion is criminalized because we're not that far away from technology that reads minds. Keeping your mouth shut won't be enough when that happens.
UK has always prosecuted hate speech. It's just now you are hearing about it, and suddenly afraid of something that most countries have done forever. We are an exception in our first amendment, in that most countries guarantee the right to criticize the govt, but we also protect the right to criticize other fellow citizens. Being able to publically use hateful speech and ethnic slurs against a marginalized minority is not actually something that protects us from authoritarianism.

Mind reading is a bit further off than you think, and it is just utter ridiculous paranoia if you are actually advancing that as a credible fear.
  #154  
Old 01-12-2019, 12:34 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The left side. There's really no reasonable doubt that he was on your side:
Actually, we are talking about gun control, and on that subject, I would say that he was probably on your side.
  #155  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:06 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

Yor complaints about china are mostly exaggerations....
Not even a little. You are completely clueless about what is going on over there. They are putting together a massive monitoring system that rates it's citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The difference between democracy and authoritarianism, is that in a democracy, I can be patient, and make my opinion heard, and fight it out at the ballot box.
The primary amendments are not up for debate. I'm not giving up the First Amendment because YOU voted it out of existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
UK has always prosecuted hate speech.
Cite? The Public Order Act was enacted in 1986.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Mind reading is a bit further off than you think, and it is just utter ridiculous paranoia if you are actually advancing that as a credible fear.
We're already experimenting with mind/computer interfaces. That's a done deal. How long it takes before it can be used against someone is not that far off.

Given how easy it is for a corporation to currently track your every move via phone, computer and financial transactions there isn't much stopping full scale abuse. This is EXACTLY what China is doing now.
  #156  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:13 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The beauty of gun bans is that they don't depend on criminals "respecting" them. You don't need their respect; you just need them to not be able to get guns. Which works in every other nation on the planet.

And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
Nothing.

What an armed citizenry does is raise the effort needed by gov't to acheive tyranny. The cost is not worth the gain.

And other countries do not factor into this. None of them are as good as the (admittedly imperfect) USA. And the Constitution, including the entire Bill of Rights, is a big part of that.
  #157  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:15 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As far as I can tell, for some folks, their guns are like their security blanket, except to the Nth degree. Take them away, and they won't just cry, they won't be able to function at all. Not every gun owner is like this, quite obviously, but in my experience, some are. Their guns are their life. They work to have money to buy guns. They structure their lives around recreational shooting and around fantasies of shooting bad guys. To these folks, even the slightest possibility of "taking their guns away" is a threat to their entire world.
Projecting much?

There are als plenty of firearms owners who may and have used them in self defense. Those who want to disarm my mother always piss me off.
  #158  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:24 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
how is it a fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's a way to avoid engaging in a true discussion, peremptorily dismissing any view one does not share while simultaneously virtue-signaling to one's colleagues.

You've been on this board long enough to know about it.
  #159  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:54 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Not even a little. You are completely clueless about what is going on over there. They are putting together a massive monitoring system that rates it's citizens.
No, not clueless, just not hysterically paranoid about it. We have many different systems of rating our citizens. How much they make, how much debt they have, their criminal history, their work history, their health history, their educational history.

What they are doing is a bit different, but it is not somethign taht you need to get worked up into such a lather about.
Quote:
The primary amendments are not up for debate. I'm not giving up the First Amendment because YOU voted it out of existence.
Actually they are all up for debate, unless you are saying that the constitution itself, where it specifically says how to amend the constitution, is up for debate.

You would not be giving up any rights granted by the amendments because *I* voted it out of existence, you would be accepting that, because the vast majority of your fellow citizens agreed to make a change, that the government would no longer be protecting that right for you.
Quote:
Cite? The Public Order Act was enacted in 1986.
Okay, always being for well over a generation. My point was that you were claiming this was something new and scary. That it is something that is 32 years old, and the fears that have you staying awake at night have yet to come to pass, should let you loosen your grip on your pearls, just a bit.
Quote:
We're already experimenting with mind/computer interfaces. That's a done deal. How long it takes before it can be used against someone is not that far off.
This is just paranoid ranting that cannot be taken seriously. At most, the mind computer interface can, with much effort on the user's part, move a cursor around the screen.

Your fears of the govt reading your mind and prosecuting your for your seditious thoughts are not only irrationally paranoid from a sociological standpoint, but from a technological one as well.
Quote:
Given how easy it is for a corporation to currently track your every move via phone, computer and financial transactions there isn't much stopping full scale abuse. This is EXACTLY what China is doing now.
Not sure how we get from guns to your paranoid rantings about what you think is happening in another country, but I'd like to see a cite that China has and is using mind reading technology.
  #160  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:02 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's a way to avoid engaging in a true discussion, peremptorily dismissing any view one does not share while simultaneously virtue-signaling to one's colleagues.

You've been on this board long enough to know about it.
You're the one making the case that it's a slipper slope as a counter point for dismissal. You just hand waved away any argument you could have made and you did it again with the post I'm responding to.

We have people who want to ban guns or the majority of them in the US. It's not a secret. Because of this we see legislation that picks off individual guns and that looks like slippery slope material to gun owners.

We protect the first amendment with great intensity to avoid a whittling away of that right. Gun owners feel the same about the 2nd Amendment.
  #161  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:38 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, not clueless, just not hysterically paranoid about it. We have many different systems of rating our citizens.
No, we don't have a government system of rating citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What they are doing is a bit different, but it is not somethign taht you need to get worked up into such a lather about.
to say what the Chinese government is doing is a bit different is mind boggling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Your fears of the govt reading your mind and prosecuting your for your seditious thoughts are not only irrationally paranoid from a sociological standpoint, but from a technological one as well.
It's not irrational to be concerned about the level of information collected on individuals. It's being done now. Europe just enacted sweeping laws regarding privacy rights as it is applied to information gathering.

I don't have any fears of the government because we have a solid base of rights.

Last edited by Magiver; 01-12-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #162  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:38 PM
kayT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Promise?


I don't want to check, but would be willing to read your reply. Which states ban the AR-15 and what does the NRA think about that?
I was not referring to AR-15s. I was suggesting that some of the posters in this thread seem to think we have no gun regulations at all, and that is just wrong. Sorry if I was not clear.

Last edited by kayT; 01-12-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #163  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:59 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You're the one making the case that it's a slipper slope as a counter point for dismissal. You just hand waved away any argument you could have made and you did it again with the post I'm responding to.
That's not what a slippery slope is. A slippery slope is when you see something happen, and you assume that it will inevitably continue down a path, with nothing able to stop it. That is the assumption that you have made.
Quote:
We have people who want to ban guns or the majority of them in the US. It's not a secret. Because of this we see legislation that picks off individual guns and that looks like slippery slope material to gun owners.
Yes, that is the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good example. To think that because there are "people who want to ban guns or the majority of them in the US." and to think that because those people exist that they will be able to control the national conversation and dictie terms would be a very foolish fall into that catagory. I'm glad you were using that as an example of a slippery slope fallacy, rather than something that you actually believe.
Quote:
We protect the first amendment with great intensity to avoid a whittling away of that right. Gun owners feel the same about the 2nd Amendment.
We whittle away at the first amendment all the time. You can't publish child porn, you can't publish state secrets, you can't even publish stuff that is in public, but claim it as your own without attribution. Go look at Cody's Lab youtube channel for his complaints on what the first amendment doesn't let him do.

If you felt the same way about the 2nd as the vast majority feel about the first, then you would agree that there are many reasonable restrictions that can be made to the ownership and carriage of guns that do not have any sort of slippery slope concerns. But, you either consider 2A to be much more important than 1A, or you are extremely ignorant as to the limitations of 1A.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
No, we don't have a government system of rating citizens.
Well, yeah, we do, ever hear of the criminal justice system? In any case, just because it is a private corporation doing things like credit scoring, rather than the govt, shouldn't actually make you sleep better at night, if it the activities that are making you so fearful.
Quote:
to say what the Chinese government is doing is a bit different is mind boggling.
I don't understand this claim of yours. Are you saying that the US is doing the same as the Chinese?
Quote:
It's not irrational to be concerned about the level of information collected on individuals. It's being done now. Europe just enacted sweeping laws regarding privacy rights as it is applied to information gathering.
If you are concerned, then don't put so much info out there. Sounds like Europe is now the area that you are praising for their privacy protections, when just a post ao you were condemning them for frowning on hate speech.
Quote:
I don't have any fears of the government because we have a solid base of rights.
I don't have any fears of the government because I'm not paranoid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I was not referring to AR-15s. I was suggesting that some of the posters in this thread seem to think we have no gun regulations at all, and that is just wrong. Sorry if I was not clear.
I disagree that there are any posters here who are under that impression. They may feel as though we don't have any effective gun regulations, they may feel as though having the gun regulations that we do have is no better than having none at all, they may even feel as though we have no regulations, as they feel that wearing a string bikini is like wearing no clothing, but as to the fact that there are no gun regulations at all, I seriously doubt that there is anyone confused on that point. Did you have some examples of what makes you think that the posters are wrong on this point?
  #164  
Old 01-12-2019, 06:38 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
I agree in principle that the Founders were 'for' allowing the citizenry to have guns. What I will dispute is the extent to which circumstances are radically different. You cannot shoot 900 people with a musket, no matter how hard you try. And they lived in an era where highly disorganized and isolated communities relied on citizens to form posses and militias. Trying to apply a decision crafted for 18th century circumstances to 21st century America is simply ridiculous.
Why are guns categorically different than any of the other things that were considered worth the explicit protection of the Bill of Rights? Can free speech be too effective? Printing presses too high-capacity? Can a religion have too many adherents?
  #165  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:29 PM
SigMan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,018
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Remember this?

We own this country and if they try to take away our rights we will have bloodshed.
  #166  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:22 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Why are guns categorically different than any of the other things that were considered worth the explicit protection of the Bill of Rights? Can free speech be too effective? Printing presses too high-capacity? Can a religion have too many adherents?
This.

If people want to constrain the 2nd Amendment to 18th century technology, then shouldn't the same be said about the 1st? It therefore shouldn't apply to any electronic media, right?
  #167  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:28 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Remember this?

We own this country and if they try to take away our rights we will have bloodshed.

But if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and laws are passed to confiscate those guns (per the OP hypothetical,) then those rights do not legally exist anymore.
  #168  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:23 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and laws are passed to confiscate those guns (per the OP hypothetical,) then those rights do not legally exist anymore.
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or "God-given") rights, and not act as a permission slip. There was actually a huge debate in the nascent country: some felt that we needed to enumerate rights so that people don't try to take them away, others argued that by creating a list of rights implies that other rights don't exist.
  #169  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
We're repeatedly told, by gun-lovers, that every half-crazed redneck who hasn't been convicted of a felony yet is entitled to buy all the AR-15's he can afford, and if we don't like it we need to repeal the Second Commandment.

Now you tell us that the only reason to repeal the Second is for a ban or near-ban.

So those are the only two choices, hunh? Every half-crazed redneck gets his own AR-15 or guns are completely banned. There is no middle ground. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
And some of you might want to check and see what regulations already exist on the ownership of guns in various locations; it's not the free-for-all you imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I was not referring to AR-15s. I was suggesting that some of the posters in this thread seem to think we have no gun regulations at all, and that is just wrong. Sorry if I was not clear.
In the context of the sub-discussion I thought we were having, yours is non-responsive. AFAICT, you're agreeing with the post I've bold-faced.
  #170  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:21 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or "God-given") rights, and not act as a permission slip.
So France and the U.K. and other fascist countries with gun control are defying the Will of Yahweh and can expect a fate like Sodom and Gomorrah?
  #171  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:35 AM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So France and the U.K. and other fascist countries with gun control are defying the Will of Yahweh and can expect a fate like Sodom and Gomorrah?
It's a figure of speech, not a biblical phase. The scare quotes aren't an accident.
  #172  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
It's a figure of speech, not a biblical phase. The scare quotes aren't an accident.
Got it. Alternate facts. Alternate words. Mexico will pay for the Wall.

It all fits together.
  #173  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:46 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or "God-given") rights
I've asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn't it found only in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that "God-given" stuff really come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SigMan View Post
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Remember this?

We own this country and if they try to take away our rights we will have bloodshed.
Yes, if We The People pass a law you don't like, you proudly assert that you won't abide by it and will try to kill any of our cops who come to enforce it. Perhaps you ought to reconsider who The People actually are and who the Bad Guys actually are, hmm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We have people who want to ban guns or the majority of them in the US. It's not a secret. Because of this we see legislation that picks off individual guns and that looks like slippery slope material to gun owners.
There you go again. Your argument is quintessential slippery-slope fallacy. Again, it is merely a proud assertion of your refusal to enter into a discussion of a position which you are not confident you can defend by argument.
  #174  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:10 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
Granted that many people who would like to remove limitations on gun control don't necessarily advocate zero guns. Got it. The problem is that gun control advocates are basically complaining that guns are too good at what they do. It's a bit contradictory to say you're OK with guns provided they're hobbled, restricted guns. Imagine treating free speech that way: "we don't want anyone who criticizes the President to be put in prison; we just want reasonable bounds on hate speech and fake facts". Needless to say, people will have sharply differing opinions on what is "reasonable".

And once the precedent has been established that weapons have no special protection, that they're just another thing that falls under the general regulatory power of the government, then given the dubious record of gun control in actually improving society, the natural tendency will be to double-down. Ban more and more and even if it never works "at least we'll be trying". Even when at some point restrictions and bans become not merely useless but counter-productive.
  #175  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:23 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,353
It's like the right-wing view on global warming: Moving goalposts. It isn't happening. It's happening but it isn't man-made. It's man-made but it isn't harmful. It's man-made and harmful but next quarter's profits would suffer. The economy's in trouble, why didn't you liberals warn us about global warning earlier?!

Similarly: Guns only kill bad people. Only bad people's guns kill good people. Good people kill good people accidentally, but the victims are mostly liberals too stupid to know about gun safety. Guns can't be banned without repealing the 2nd Commandment. You can't repeal the 2nd Commandment: it was written by the Finger of God atop Mount Sinai.

Amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I've asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? ... so where does that "God-given" stuff really come from?

Yes, if We The People pass a law you don't like, you proudly assert that you won't abide by it and will try to kill any of our cops who come to enforce it. Perhaps you ought to reconsider who The People actually are and who the Bad Guys actually are, hmm?
Methinks that the smarter ones have enough self-awareness to know Thomas Jefferson and the other FFs would roll over in their graves if they saw all the dumb rednecks toting AR-15's and invoking the FFs! That's why they've switched to blaming Yahweh instead of the FFs. Who can argue with God? (If you say God didn't mention guns to you, you're just a liberal atheist who doesn't even watch Pat Robertson TV.) Of course it's OK to kill the jackbooted liberal gummint thugs when you're serving God !!

In #171, there seems to be a claim that the Second Commandment's Divinity is just hyperbole. Can we get a comment from the other gunnists on that claim?

Last edited by septimus; 01-13-2019 at 08:25 AM.
  #176  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:18 AM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The beauty of gun bans is that they don't depend on criminals "respecting" them. You don't need their respect; you just need them to not be able to get guns. Which works in every other nation on the planet.

And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you think making guns illegal would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or that they wouldn't be able to get them you're wrong.

First if that were true then we wouldn't have an illegal drug problem in the US. We have a long list of drugs that are illegal and unless you live in a very tiny town, the odds are you can get any drug you wish with little or no problem. So, making those drugs illegal didn’t stop criminals from not only getting them but also selling them.

Second criminals get guns even in places where they are banned or restricted. True they have fewer shooting as the criminals move on the cheaper methods bombs, trucks etc. for mass murder, but you'll notice the murder rate stays about the same or follows the same trend as before any ban. Australia being an example of that after their "ban" it wasn't really a ban, but they restricted many guns, the murder rate went up then back down then continued the same trend as before the ban, on a downward trend.

Third the plans for build a fully automatic gun (machine gun) are freely available on the internet and use common parts, and if you don't already have all the tools you can buy them at harbor freight for a very small price. We’re seeing more and more of these on the street, with the rise of more restrictions on guns.

Forth and the biggest one, we can now 3d print guns, the semi-automatic fired more than 600 rounds, yes that was the lower receiver, which is what the government defines as a gun. All the other parts can be purchases without a background check or built with common tools. So sooner than you think any gun law, ban, restriction will become mute as far as criminals are concerned, need a gun print it out, toss it away when you’re done. No real way to trace it.

As to your last point, assuming you could get all the armed forces to go along with attacking fellow Americans on American soil and didn't have a number of armed forces members join with those fighting. And assuming they ignored all the rights of those fighting, and the president would agree to kill an American, on that point you do have recent history on your side on this on as Obama order an American killed in a country in which we were not at war with, but tell me how did that work out in Vietnam? Or better yet, how did the British do against the IRA? That's the kind or war you'd be looking at, so while there may be a tank sitting on the corner. It wouldn't stop the guns and it would probably lead to a huge split in this country.

BTW here's the short list of what the IRA turned in

1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 hand guns
100+ grenades

And don't forget they were all banned. And that just what they turn in who know what they didn’t turn in, just in case that deal went south.
  #177  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:32 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Methinks that the smarter ones have enough self-awareness to know Thomas Jefferson and the other FFs would roll over in their graves if they saw all the dumb rednecks toting AR-15's and invoking the FFs!
Actually, Thomas Jefferson for one would be aghast that citizens are forbidden by most state's laws from drilling as military companies; and that many people now say that only the government and its enforcers can be trusted with guns. Whether you think that's right or wrong, it's 180° opposite from the ideal the FFs endorsed.
  #178  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:49 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,514
If you want to be a member of the National Guard, just go find a recruiter and raise your right hand. That's all a member of The People has to do. Well, then learn what it really means to be well-regulated, too.

You do seem to be quite unclear about what the writers of the Constitution meant for a militia to do. They did tell us, though. Please read the entire document, find out, and get back to us.
  #179  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:55 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or "God-given") rights, and not act as a permission slip. There was actually a huge debate in the nascent country: some felt that we needed to enumerate rights so that people don't try to take them away, others argued that by creating a list of rights implies that other rights don't exist.
There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising *those* rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do.

The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state's ability to "well regulate" its militia.

To say that the FF's "recognized" this pre-existing right and enshrined it into law would require that they also prohibited states from restricting guns, and they most certainly did not do that. They made a compromise allowing states to make their own laws, and 2A is only a promise that the fed will not interfere with the states on gun laws, allowing them to set the laws they way they felt was best. Now it is turned around, and the fed interferes with states on gun laws, not allowing states to set the laws the way they feel is best. Anyone for state's rights should be against 2A restricting states ability to set gun laws.

We have no rights but the ones that we grant to each other. Rights not enumerated *do not* exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Granted that many people who would like to remove limitations on gun control don't necessarily advocate zero guns. Got it. The problem is that gun control advocates are basically complaining that guns are too good at what they do. It's a bit contradictory to say you're OK with guns provided they're hobbled, restricted guns. Imagine treating free speech that way: "we don't want anyone who criticizes the President to be put in prison; we just want reasonable bounds on hate speech and fake facts". Needless to say, people will have sharply differing opinions on what is "reasonable".
No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies.

That a gun is good at what it does, killing people, is why we should make some effort to make sure that the people holding them will be responsible with them.

We do have many, many reasonable bounds on speech. If I were to go in public, and say that (your real name here) is a criminal who does these specific criminal acts, and then I call for violence to be taken against you, my speech will be curtailed, do you think it should not be?

We agree to reasonable restrictions on both speech and guns, so it is not a matter of whether or not reasonable restrictions are acceptable, it is only a discussion about what is reasonable.

A discussion on what is reasonable is a good discussion to have. An adamant statement that no gun control is reasonable because of 2A is not only wrong from the start, but never leads to any sort of productive discussion.

Quote:
And once the precedent has been established that weapons have no special protection, that they're just another thing that falls under the general regulatory power of the government, then given the dubious record of gun control in actually improving society, the natural tendency will be to double-down. Ban more and more and even if it never works "at least we'll be trying". Even when at some point restrictions and bans become not merely useless but counter-productive.
It is not banning guns that is the motivation of the vast, vast majority of those in favor of reasonable gun control, so the constant refrain of banning guns is a strawman.

It is people that should be banned from having guns, based on their demonstrations of responsibility. If you are shooting your gun off in the woods with your friends, and you kill some kid in the back seat of a car driving down the road through the woods, do you think that you should lose the right to have a gun, at least for a little while?

While there are many who think that a mistake, even though it ended in tragedy and senseless loss for a family, that the person who pulled the trigger is punished enough by knowing what he did, he shouldn't lose his gun, I personally think that not only should he lose his gun, so should his friends that were also shooting off, as well as anyone else caught firing in public areas without taking the diligence of ensuring that they have a proper backstop.

People who make threats against the school, their work, their domestic partner, neighbor, or against politicians and public figures should have an easy way to remove them from their guns. It should be a no-brainer that someone making such threats should be heavily restricted from having access to guns, do you disagree with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you think making guns illegal would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or that they wouldn't be able to get them you're wrong.
If a criminal really wants a gun, they can get a gun, sure. But if a criminal doesn't really want a gun, they can still get one very, very easily. You can get a gun off the black market for less than you can in the gun store.

If that changed, and the supply of guns flooding into the black market slowed down, due to higher restrictions on sales and storage, then guns will be more expensive on the black market, and they will be harder to get ahold of.

If you really, really want one, then you can always get one. I'd like to see it limited to only those who really really want one, and are willing to go to great expense, effort, and risk, in order to get a gun, rather than simply having a gun because it was cheap and easy to get.
Quote:
First if that were true then we wouldn't have an illegal drug problem in the US. We have a long list of drugs that are illegal and unless you live in a very tiny town, the odds are you can get any drug you wish with little or no problem. So, making those drugs illegal didn’t stop criminals from not only getting them but also selling them.
Drugs are far easier to smuggle than guns, and they have a much, much higher value based on either weight or on volume. They also have a steady market, where you have returning customers over and over, building up a relationship and lowering the perceived risk for both dealer and purchaser, as opposed to gun purchases, that would be more infrequent, and would be a higher risk entailed for both seller and buyer.

Stopping the flow of guns into the hands of criminals is impossible, you are correct, but drastically slowing the deluge that is available is very doable, so long as we do not insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good.
Quote:
Second criminals get guns even in places where they are banned or restricted. True they have fewer shooting as the criminals move on the cheaper methods bombs, trucks etc. for mass murder, but you'll notice the murder rate stays about the same or follows the same trend as before any ban. Australia being an example of that after their "ban" it wasn't really a ban, but they restricted many guns, the murder rate went up then back down then continued the same trend as before the ban, on a downward trend.
Fewer toddlers shot though, right?
Quote:
Third the plans for build a fully automatic gun (machine gun) are freely available on the internet and use common parts, and if you don't already have all the tools you can buy them at harbor freight for a very small price. We’re seeing more and more of these on the street, with the rise of more restrictions on guns.

Forth and the biggest one, we can now 3d print guns, the semi-automatic fired more than 600 rounds, yes that was the lower receiver, which is what the government defines as a gun. All the other parts can be purchases without a background check or built with common tools. So sooner than you think any gun law, ban, restriction will become mute as far as criminals are concerned, need a gun print it out, toss it away when you’re done. No real way to trace it.
These are once again objections that you consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Yes, people can do things if they dedicate themselves to doing them. The problem is, is that right now, they can do these same things on a whim. Putting up barriers to someone's access to lethal weaponry will dissuade the vast majority from very easily and casually acquiring guns for use in crime will reduce the guns used in crime.

To object that it will not drop it to zero implies that you do not think that any laws at all should ever be passed or enforced, as no law has ever had 100% compliance.
Quote:
As to your last point, assuming you could get all the armed forces to go along with attacking fellow Americans on American soil and didn't have a number of armed forces members join with those fighting. And assuming they ignored all the rights of those fighting, and the president would agree to kill an American, on that point you do have recent history on your side on this on as Obama order an American killed in a country in which we were not at war with, but tell me how did that work out in Vietnam? Or better yet, how did the British do against the IRA? That's the kind or war you'd be looking at, so while there may be a tank sitting on the corner. It wouldn't stop the guns and it would probably lead to a huge split in this country.
The armed forces wouldn't be attacking because they are ignoring the rights of those fighting, if it came to that, the forces would be attacking because you have carried through with your terroristic threats of making a bloodbath if you don't get your way democratically.
Quote:
BTW here's the short list of what the IRA turned in

1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 hand guns
100+ grenades

And don't forget they were all banned. And that just what they turn in who know what they didn’t turn in, just in case that deal went south.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective?
  #180  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:58 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Actually, Thomas Jefferson for one would be aghast that citizens are forbidden by most state's laws from drilling as military companies; and that many people now say that only the government and its enforcers can be trusted with guns. Whether you think that's right or wrong, it's 180° opposite from the ideal the FFs endorsed.
2A did call for a well regulated militia, and it would be the states that are regulating that militia according to the constitution. What do you have against the constitution, that you would limit a state's constitutional right to regulate its militias?

The FF's absolutely thought that the govt should have a monopoly on violence, and granted the states the ability and rights to enforce that.
  #181  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:45 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,569
Nm

Last edited by Acsenray; 01-13-2019 at 11:46 AM.
  #182  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:38 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you want to be a member of the National Guard, just go find a recruiter and raise your right hand. That's all a member of The People has to do. Well, then learn what it really means to be well-regulated, too.

You do seem to be quite unclear about what the writers of the Constitution meant for a militia to do. They did tell us, though. Please read the entire document, find out, and get back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
2A did call for a well regulated militia, and it would be the states that are regulating that militia according to the constitution. What do you have against the constitution, that you would limit a state's constitutional right to regulate its militias?

The FF's absolutely thought that the govt should have a monopoly on violence, and granted the states the ability and rights to enforce that.
<sigh> Here we go again. The single phrase that the gun control advocates can't seem to get past: well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated . Despite the fact that time and again cites have been given that, to quote the internet meme, "I do not think it means what you think it means". To cite (again) just one source:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I'm familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can't- or don't want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it's used the Framers invariably used the term "disciplined" when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn't graciously "grant" the states the "right" to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a de facto disarmament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies.
Well it's easy to get a gun if you've never done anything wrong, on the general principle that people should be free unless and until that freedom is misused. That's why we have things like trials and competency hearings. Prior restraint, where someone is forbidden to do something because they may commit a wrongdoing is the antithesis of freedom and the most problematic of legal methods. Would you have people forbidden to own guns based on the accusations of a crank neighbor or an angry ex; or profiling based on claims that you can assign an increased statistical risk of misusing firearms based on certain criteria?

Gun control in this country is by and large NOT about "sensible regulation", it's about the belief that there should be as few guns in private hands as possible, with zero the ideal. Countries like Switzerland have true gun regulation, where it is not in pursuit of discouraging and obstructing as many people as possible from owning guns. Look at Shall Issue carry: it is the simple principle that people who meet the qualifications (sensible regulation iow) cannot arbitrarily be denied a carry permit. The gun control crowd insisted this would be the end of civilized society, that our cities would descend into chaos like an American Mogadishu or Beirut. Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of anything that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use.
  #183  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:49 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
One theory I've heard is that the Second Amendment was part of the compromise with the south. Southern delegates were worried that the federal government might not send troops to support them if there were slave uprisings. So they wanted to make sure that they had the legal right to raise their own local troops if necessary.

It makes sense. Most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights addressed specific things that the British had done like closing hostile presses, breaking up meetings, and quartering troops. And the British had also encouraged slave uprisings during the war. Congress, which saw its main enemy as the British Army, didn't send troops to help defend against these uprisings.
  #184  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:05 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I'm familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can't- or don't want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it's used the Framers invariably used the term "disciplined" when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn't graciously "grant" the states the "right" to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a de facto disarmament.
I'm imagining the scene when Antonin Scalia summoned you to his deathbed and spoke the words: "Dear Lumpy, for the last thirty years I alone have held the power to see into the hearts and minds of the founding fathers and truly know their thoughts. And I have faithfully discharged my sacred duty of passing on their thoughts to America, unsoiled by any feelings or beliefs I myself held. Let God witness that I have never expressed my own opinions but only said those things which the founding fathers would have said had they been able to. But now my time is ending and God has chosen you as the one I must pass this power to. From now until the day you die, you alone will bear the gift of knowing what it is the founding fathers meant and the burden of conveying their thoughts to all others."
  #185  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:17 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
ha. ha.

Seriously, you do understand that vocabulary changes over centuries? By usage words acquire meanings they didn't originally have? That's not magic mind reading, that's what the words meant at the time.
  #186  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:23 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
Yes, I understand language changes over time. So I, as somebody living in the 21st century, will sometimes have difficulty understanding what somebody who was writing in the 18th century meant. Which is why I would never claim that I am absolutely positive that I know what they were thinking.

Other people living in the 21st century might also acknowledge this uncertainty.
  #187  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:26 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
Is it that tough to understand? Primarily two worries:

1. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against criminals, who will not respect a gun ban.

2. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against overly zealous government agents, who won't be hampered by a gun ban.

Basically, they want a level playing field.

1. But do they really feel like this? I'd guess at least a few do. I do know that I've known plenty of people who like and own guns, and never once have I known them to carry them around for defense.

2. Pretty much the same idea as 1.

Again, not claiming to know, I'd bet that they don't like the idea of being told by weeny-ass liberals what they can and can't have, but don't want to say that, so they come up with excuses like the above.

So, any gun owners in this thread who are terrified little man-babies, that are oh, so afraid to venture out into the big bad scary world without their precious firearms? Or am I right?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-13-2019 at 02:27 PM.
  #188  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:27 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
And on a separate note, language is not the only thing that has changed since the 18th century. Which means that even if we knew with absolute certainty what the founding fathers were thinking when they enacted the Second Amendment and even if they were choosing the best possible position at the time, it doesn't mean that the position they held in 1789 is still the best position in 2019.
  #189  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:39 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Got it. Alternate facts. Alternate words. Mexico will pay for the Wall.

It all fits together.
This isn't a thread about Trump, and doesn't have anything even peripherally to do with him, so I'm not sure why you need to bring him up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I've asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn't it found only in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that "God-given" stuff really come from?
Thank you for asking earnestly. It is not my opinion, hence the scare quotes, just a stock phrase that comes up often. People were more religious back then, even though Jefferson was very heterodox. It was the phrasing people used.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising *those* rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do.
I get what you are saying and don't disagree, but they are rights in the
philosophical sense.

Quote:
The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state's ability to "well regulate" its militia.
I'm not sure about that first part, I don't see how it's permission for regulation, but they were very serious about the independence of states.

But with regard to "well regulated," it clearly means well trained, not about any regulations.

Last edited by thelurkinghorror; 01-13-2019 at 02:39 PM.
  #190  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:40 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
<sigh> Here we go again. The single phrase that the gun control advocates can't seem to get past: well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated . Despite the fact that time and again cites have been given that, to quote the internet meme, "I do not think it means what you think it means". To cite (again) just one source:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I'm familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can't- or don't want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it's used the Framers invariably used the term "disciplined" when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn't graciously "grant" the states the "right" to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a de facto disarmament.
You completely missed the entirety of the point.

First, as you say, well regulated means disciplined, that's not archaic, that's obvious. You also forget that the third word of that phrase is "militia" which has a very specific definition defined in the constitution. It was not 2A that calls for a militia, it is Article 1, section 8. That is what defines what a militia is, and what is responsibilities are. 2A then recognizes the need for a militia, and prevents the federal government from passing laws that would interfere with the states ability to raise one.

You also miss the fact that the founders did not prohibit states from restricting gun rights, and many states did so with not a even a single tweet from them. You have ducked that point on several occaisons, and just ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Do you think that the FF's would have wanted states to not have a right to make gun laws? If you think that, then why do you think that they didn't?

The states were worried about the fed not allowing them to raise militias as the saw fit, to do important things like commit genocide on the natives and put down slave uprisings, and if the fed changed its mind on those things, then the states wouldn't much appreciate it. So, the fed cannot tell the states how to regulate guns in their borders. That was the intent of the FF's. Not to protect the right of an individual to have a gun, but to protect the right of a state to make gun laws as they saw fit.
Quote:
Well it's easy to get a gun if you've never done anything wrong, on the general principle that people should be free unless and until that freedom is misused. That's why we have things like trials and competency hearings. Prior restraint, where someone is forbidden to do something because they may commit a wrongdoing is the antithesis of freedom and the most problematic of legal methods. Would you have people forbidden to own guns based on the accusations of a crank neighbor or an angry ex; or profiling based on claims that you can assign an increased statistical risk of misusing firearms based on certain criteria?
Do you consider that you have to have applied for, taken, and passed a diver's test before you are allowed to drive to be prior restraint?

But yeah, if your crank neighbor is threatening you because your tree dropped a branch on his azaleas, wouldn't you be more comfortable knowing that steps have been taken to reduce the threat that he poses to you and your family?

In any case, it is also very, very easy to get a gun if you *have* done something wrong. You can be prohibited from owning a gun, and all that means is that you don't acutally go to the counter of the gun store to buy your gun.

(Aside: If I were at my local gun shop, looking at a particular gun, and while I am out thinking about it [it's a $950 gun, not an impulse buy], someone asks me if I would be interested in that same model of gun, but for only $250. If I were to buy it, and later it turned out to be stolen, would I have any liability?)
Quote:
Gun control in this country is by and large NOT about "sensible regulation", it's about the belief that there should be as few guns in private hands as possible, with zero the ideal.
Strawman, pure and simple. That is not the position that we are taking, that is not the position that the vast majority of those for sensible regulation are taking. It is a completely dishonest tactic to keep claiming that we are in favor of something that we are not. If you insist on only talking about the most extreme of gun control advocates, then we will have little choice but to point out the most extreme of gun users.

I'll take Feinsten over Paddock, if I have to make a choice, would you?
Quote:
Countries like Switzerland have true gun regulation, where it is not in pursuit of discouraging and obstructing as many people as possible from owning guns.
And I consider Switzerland to be a viable model for us to move towards. They have a high rate of gun ownership, but very little gun violence and accidents.
Quote:
Look at Shall Issue carry: it is the simple principle that people who meet the qualifications (sensible regulation iow) cannot arbitrarily be denied a carry permit.
You are conflating. Are you claiming that switzerland has shall issue carry?
Quote:
The gun control crowd insisted this would be the end of civilized society, that our cities would descend into chaos like an American Mogadishu or Beirut. Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of anything that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use.
  #191  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure.
There is an ever-growing support for gun control in this country. I contend that it is far from obvious that an enormous shift would have to happen among the American populace at large for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, but an enormous shift in the number of politicians across the states that would be willing to vote for it. Now, I am not talking about anything like this happening in a few years, or even a decade. But I do not think twenty years or the like is necessarily out of the question, given current trends in gun control support and generally liberal ideas. Being that we are not in GD, I want to make clear that of course I have no hard evidence for that. But Lumpy's contention does not seem to me to be so evident.

ETA: Note that I am only talking about repeal, not complete banning of guns.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-13-2019 at 02:59 PM.
  #192  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:00 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of anything that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use.
Missed the edit.

How many is too many? Do you know how many there are, and in what proportion to the numbers that simply want some sort of sensible controls?

As long as there is a single gun control advocate that advocates for a complete gun ban, gun owners should be correct to resist having a reasonable discussion about how we can improve public safety? 2, 5, 10? What is the number that you say is too much, precisely?
  #193  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:11 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,353

Question for gun lovers


Many of you gunners regarded guns as the most important issue in the 2016 Presidential Election; and voted for Trump.

Are gun rights still the most important political issue facing the USA today? Would you still vote for Trump?
  #194  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:13 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Personally, I'd like to see gun ownership treated as the equivalent of driving and owning a car. People would generally be allowed to own guns. But guns would be regulated and there would be standards which would prohibit ownership in some cases.
I was thinking about gun ownership/car ownership before entering this thread, and why it's widely agreed that car licensing/registration/required driving classes make sense for cars but not guns among gun owners. My theory is that we all pretty much agree we should be able to own cars, and they are necessary for most people in today's society. But we don't all agree in the same about the necessity of guns. So, it's easy for a gun owner to acknowledge that the other side is right about cars, but not about guns. That is, they don't like being told anything about the guns they own by those that don't like/approve of them. People have a natural inclination not to like being told what to do, so guns owners rationalize all sorts of things in order to resist. Like the obvious notion that the more guns that are banned, the fewer people that will be harmed by them.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-13-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  #195  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:24 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I've asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn't it found only in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that "God-given" stuff really come from?
Read the Declaration of Independence if you really don't know. The Founding Fathers didn't feel the need to quote any religious writings - they held that it was self-evident that rights came from the Creator.

So that's where the "God-given" part comes from. You don't have to believe it, but if you really never got an answer before, now you have it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #196  
Old 01-13-2019, 06:09 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
they held that it was self-evident that rights came from the Creator.
The rights listed were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not gun ownership, which in fact is in direct opposition to each of these rights held by others.

Quote:
So that's where the "God-given" part comes from. You don't have to believe it, but if you really never got an answer before, now you have it.
The question was not about rights in general. Again, the right claimed to be "God-given" is the one to gun ownership. Where does that come from? What other document or teachings even discuss it positively? What God created it?

Lumpy, do please read the rest of the Constitution sometime. Lotsa good stuff in there.
  #197  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:37 PM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising *those* rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do.

The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state's ability to "well regulate" its militia.

To say that the FF's "recognized" this pre-existing right and enshrined it into law would require that they also prohibited states from restricting guns, and they most certainly did not do that. They made a compromise allowing states to make their own laws, and 2A is only a promise that the fed will not interfere with the states on gun laws, allowing them to set the laws they way they felt was best. Now it is turned around, and the fed interferes with states on gun laws, not allowing states to set the laws the way they feel is best. Anyone for state's rights should be against 2A restricting states ability to set gun laws.

We have no rights but the ones that we grant to each other. Rights not enumerated *do not* exist.



No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies.

That a gun is good at what it does, killing people, is why we should make some effort to make sure that the people holding them will be responsible with them.

We do have many, many reasonable bounds on speech. If I were to go in public, and say that (your real name here) is a criminal who does these specific criminal acts, and then I call for violence to be taken against you, my speech will be curtailed, do you think it should not be?

We agree to reasonable restrictions on both speech and guns, so it is not a matter of whether or not reasonable restrictions are acceptable, it is only a discussion about what is reasonable.

A discussion on what is reasonable is a good discussion to have. An adamant statement that no gun control is reasonable because of 2A is not only wrong from the start, but never leads to any sort of productive discussion.



It is not banning guns that is the motivation of the vast, vast majority of those in favor of reasonable gun control, so the constant refrain of banning guns is a strawman.

It is people that should be banned from having guns, based on their demonstrations of responsibility. If you are shooting your gun off in the woods with your friends, and you kill some kid in the back seat of a car driving down the road through the woods, do you think that you should lose the right to have a gun, at least for a little while?

While there are many who think that a mistake, even though it ended in tragedy and senseless loss for a family, that the person who pulled the trigger is punished enough by knowing what he did, he shouldn't lose his gun, I personally think that not only should he lose his gun, so should his friends that were also shooting off, as well as anyone else caught firing in public areas without taking the diligence of ensuring that they have a proper backstop.

People who make threats against the school, their work, their domestic partner, neighbor, or against politicians and public figures should have an easy way to remove them from their guns. It should be a no-brainer that someone making such threats should be heavily restricted from having access to guns, do you disagree with that?


If a criminal really wants a gun, they can get a gun, sure. But if a criminal doesn't really want a gun, they can still get one very, very easily. You can get a gun off the black market for less than you can in the gun store.

If that changed, and the supply of guns flooding into the black market slowed down, due to higher restrictions on sales and storage, then guns will be more expensive on the black market, and they will be harder to get ahold of.

If you really, really want one, then you can always get one. I'd like to see it limited to only those who really really want one, and are willing to go to great expense, effort, and risk, in order to get a gun, rather than simply having a gun because it was cheap and easy to get.

Drugs are far easier to smuggle than guns, and they have a much, much higher value based on either weight or on volume. They also have a steady market, where you have returning customers over and over, building up a relationship and lowering the perceived risk for both dealer and purchaser, as opposed to gun purchases, that would be more infrequent, and would be a higher risk entailed for both seller and buyer.

Stopping the flow of guns into the hands of criminals is impossible, you are correct, but drastically slowing the deluge that is available is very doable, so long as we do not insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good.

Fewer toddlers shot though, right?

These are once again objections that you consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Yes, people can do things if they dedicate themselves to doing them. The problem is, is that right now, they can do these same things on a whim. Putting up barriers to someone's access to lethal weaponry will dissuade the vast majority from very easily and casually acquiring guns for use in crime will reduce the guns used in crime.

To object that it will not drop it to zero implies that you do not think that any laws at all should ever be passed or enforced, as no law has ever had 100% compliance.

The armed forces wouldn't be attacking because they are ignoring the rights of those fighting, if it came to that, the forces would be attacking because you have carried through with your terroristic threats of making a bloodbath if you don't get your way democratically.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective?[/QUOTE]

I think you missed the point, the IRA managed to get many weapons that were banned, the fact that making something illegal we means it won't be available is illogical. You also are missing the point the the British fought the IRA for many, many years and yet really didn't defeat them. Imagine going to the Midwest, then try rounding up all the guns, and fighting people who you don't know are with or against you? When the enemy look like everyone else, who don't wear uniforms, who hit and run who will blow up your base and the local population will hide them what do you do, shoot everyone?

The fact the murder rate doesn't really change, pre and post gun ban should tell you the banning guns doesn't really work when it comes to stopping people from killing each other, or does it make you feel better that someone was beaten to death rather then shot?

Laws are only followed by people who obey the law, criminals by definition don't follow the law. Now look at the compliance in New Jersey and their ban on large capacity magazines, compliance is almost 0, what it did was turn a lot of people in to criminals, who refused to follow the new law for any number of reasons. Think about that for a second, then think about if a majority of people state disrespecting the law then the state itself is in danger. Gun control in Canada failed because people failed to followed it. Just like the war on drugs failed because people failed to follow it, and Canada gave up, you can't lock everyone up.

Again we are in the age of 3d printing, and while it might not be perfect at this time it's getting better and better every year as well as cheaper every year. We can print in metal now, so how do you stop that? Easy, the only way to stop that is to stop free speech, there are instructions on how to make cotton powder, plastic explosives, machine gun, bombs, EMP devices, heck with a tiny bit of research you could build a drone to fly a bomb anywhere, while you're sipping champagne far, far away. So to stop that free speech must end, then that whole 4th amendment, that has to go too, we need to find the 300 million guns and if you have nothing to hide you should object.

You see I don't see it as a gun issue, I see it as a rights issue. If the government can take away any of our rights then they can take them all.
  #198  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:39 PM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
And on a separate note, language is not the only thing that has changed since the 18th century. Which means that even if we knew with absolute certainty what the founding fathers were thinking when they enacted the Second Amendment and even if they were choosing the best possible position at the time, it doesn't mean that the position they held in 1789 is still the best position in 2019.
Then amend the Constitution, easy if you really think you're right and that people will agree with you, strip the 2nd out of the constitution.
  #199  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:08 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I was thinking about gun ownership/car ownership before entering this thread, and why it's widely agreed that car licensing/registration/required driving classes make sense for cars but not guns among gun owners. My theory is that we all pretty much agree we should be able to own cars, and they are necessary for most people in today's society. But we don't all agree in the same about the necessity of guns. So, it's easy for a gun owner to acknowledge that the other side is right about cars, but not about guns. That is, they don't like being told anything about the guns they own by those that don't like/approve of them. People have a natural inclination not to like being told what to do, so guns owners rationalize all sorts of things in order to resist. Like the obvious notion that the more guns that are banned, the fewer people that will be harmed by them.
It's possible. But I also think it's possible that the people who have an absolutist opposition to any form of gun control are that way because the Second Amendment allows them to be. For all practical purposes, they've already won the argument before it even begins. So they don't have to put any effort into winning people over to their side.

Suppose I was morally opposed to the idea of speed limits. I believe that God and Natural Law gives every American the right to drive as fast as they choose anywhere they choose. My problem is that a lot of people feel otherwise and speed limits are in effect all over the country.

Now I don't have a Constitutional Amendment that I can point to which says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to drive as fast as you want. So if I want to eliminate speed limits, I have to do it through the legislative process and that means I have to win over the majority of the general public to my point of view. And that means I have to be nice. I can't just shout at people and tell them they're wrong. I have to smile and present my arguments in a friendly manner. I might even have to compromise my ideal of unlimited speed and work on enacting a national 90 mph speed limit.
  #200  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:14 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
Then amend the Constitution, easy if you really think you're right and that people will agree with you, strip the 2nd out of the constitution.
The founding fathers inexplicably failed to include a line in the Constitution about how Little Nemo could make changes in it whenever he thought he was right. So I can't just rewrite the Constitution on my own initiative.

And as I've said in this thread, I'm not all that worked up about the Second Amendment. I think it's a mistake but there are other constitutional issues I feel are more important than gun ownership. If other people want to put forth the effort into getting a repeal movement going, I'll vote for repeal when it gets on the ballot. But I'm not going to spend a lot of my time getting it on the ballot.
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 06:21 PM.

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