[QUOTE=Carnick]
If I were ever in a situation like the campus shootings, I’d love having Airman as one of my classmates, because he could protect me whilst I defecated myself with my hands over my ears. You on the other hand seem like the type who’d knock me to the ground running for the exit.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? I can understand that his insulting gun-owners put you into a rage, but where in what DtC wrote did you get that he would knock you down in such a situation?
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Why do you say that? I can understand that his insulting gun-owners put you into a rage, but where in what DtC wrote did you get that he would knock you down in such a situation?
[/QUOTE]
Nothing. I was returning his baseless insult with another baseless insult. Gotta love the Pit.
Still, I would much rather have Airman as a classmate, provided he’s packing heat at the time.
[QUOTE=Carnick]
Nothing. I was returning his baseless insult with another baseless insult. Gotta love the Pit.
Still, I would much rather have Airman as a classmate, provided he’s packing heat at the time.
[/QUOTE]
He won’t be. He’s a law abiding gun owner. Amazing how often the anti-gun Nazis miss the bolded part in their arguments. Astounding how much difference it makes.
Finally! It was taking forever for Godwin’s law to come into effect! I was getting impatient.
P.S. I forgot the corollary to Godwin’s law: «Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.»
Oh, Arnold, that’s hardly fair. Weirddave was using the colloquial term, slightly disparaging in nature, similar in nature to ‘grammar nazi’. I wouldn’t have used it, but it’s not quite the same thing.
Ok fine, I’ll do it.
The Nazis didn’t let the Jews have guns.
Can we close the thread now?
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
[ol][li]danger to the public (including the amount of effort and specialized knowledge required to make item X dangerous) when someone (the lone psycho) uses the item for harm[/li][li]danger to the public (including the amount of effort and specialized knowledge required to make item X dangerous) when someone (the run-of-the-mill criminal) uses the item for harm - I would actually include this in item 1. but the distinction is being made in this thread[/li][li]danger to the public when a well-meaning member of the public uses the item carelessly[/li][li]the benefits offered by item X when used by the general public for its intended purpose[/ol][/li]
[/QUOTE]
A: Oooh, there’s a List Tag. Nice.
B: This is really interesting, Arnold. There’s a
[list=5][li]is access to this device a constitutional right?[/list] issue, though. And, of course, [/li][list=6][li]benefit to the individual offered by item X when used for its intended purpose.[/list][/li](Saving 800 bucks on my food bill is not a small benefit.) Remember, we’re Americans. Society is not our greatest concern, here. The rights of the individual are paramount. Suppressing individual rights to help society is, generally, much worse than anything else. (see: Freedom of speech, religion)
We have an easily analyzed item, of course, that seems to be analogous to the discussion: car ownership. The problem being, of course, car ownership is not a right, you do not need to be licensed to own a car, or operate one, just to operate it on public roads. (Michael Andretti does not need a driver’s license to race.)
But the death rate is judged an acceptable risk.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Oh, Arnold, that’s hardly fair. Weirddave was using the colloquial term, slightly disparaging in nature, similar in nature to ‘grammar nazi’. I wouldn’t have used it, but it’s not quite the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t take Godwin’s law that seriously, so perhaps I should have put a smiley in my post. But gun rights advocates say that gun possession is a) a fundamental right and b) one of the citizen’s refuge against a tyrannical government. So when one calls gun control advocates Nazis, I think that Godwin’s law definitely applies. This is not the same thing as tweaking people that advocate proper spelling.
Yes, in the USA, there is a constitutional article with a debated interpretation. If the correct interpretation is individual gun ownership rather than state militias, then I view this as an oddity, I don’t know of any other modern country that has this in their constitution. It’s definitely not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By the way, is the 800 $ on your food bill example related to the gun issue? I don’t get it.
The car analogy, like the “you can use a pencil to kill someone” argument, has always seemed to me to be irrelevant. But it always gets trotted out. A car’s main purpose is not to kill someone. And to drive a car, people are supposed to prove that they can actually drive it (pass a driver’s test to show at least minimal proficiency). No such test when you buy a gun.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Well, I don’t take Godwin’s law that seriously, so perhaps I should have put a smiley in my post. But gun rights advocates say that gun possession is a) a fundamental right and b) one of the citizen’s refuge against a tyrannical government. So when one calls gun control advocates Nazis, I think that Godwin’s law definitely applies. This is not the same thing as tweaking people that advocate proper spelling.
[/quote]
Oh, bullshit. “XXXX-nazi” is a colloquial term that means about the same as “XXXX-fanatics” or “XXXX-nuts”. It has nothing at all to do, really, with Hitler or the real Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. It refers to people who slavishly and unthinkingly follow or espouse a certain philosophy with the mad light of zealotry in their eyes. It doesn’t refer to people who think that guns should be subjected to reasonable regulation, it refers to those people who shrilly trumpet “GUNS AR BAD WE HAVE TO GET RID OF GUNS! NOONE CAN USE A GUN SAFELY! BLOODSHED! MAYHEM! WILD WEST! WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNNNNNNNNN!”, people who would cheerfully, nay, eagerly, throw away one of our most valuable Constitutional rights simply because they are scared.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Yes, in the USA, there is a constitutional article
[/quote]
There sure is. that’s the end of it, right there. Game, set, match. It’s a constitutional right, guaranteed to citizens of the U.S. You wanna change it Skippy, you’re going to have to amend the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
with a debated interpretation.
[/quote]
Do some historical research. It’s “debated” only by people who want to take away that right and are looking for justification for doing so, and even that is a fairly recent phenomenon.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
If the correct interpretation is individual gun ownership rather than state militias, then I view this as an oddity, I don’t know of any other modern country that has this in their constitution. It’s definitely not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[/quote]
Speaking of things I don’t get, I don’t get what your point here is. It’s not a right other countries have in their constitutions (or equivalents). No matter how many times I read that, my reaction continues to be “so?”. Seriously, so what? Really, what China or Belize or France or Canada or Niger or India or Australia or Sudan or Israel or Sudan or Iran or whoever does or doesn’t do…what does that have to do with the U.S.?
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
The car analogy, like the “you can use a pencil to kill someone” argument, has always seemed to me to be irrelevant. But it always gets trotted out. A car’s main purpose is not to kill someone. And to drive a car, people are supposed to prove that they can actually drive it (pass a driver’s test to show at least minimal proficiency). No such test when you buy a gun.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually, the question is a simple cost/benefit analysis. Do the benefits of cars outweigh the costs? I think almost anyone would answer yes. Do the benefits of guns outweigh their cost? To anyone willing to do a little research into the actual statistics and facts instead of being swayed by “Guns are bad, m’kay? They’re evil and ugly and OMG, they can KILL someone! Actually kill! Yes, kill dead!” arguments, the answer is as blindingly obvious: yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
The funny thing here is that I don’t even own a gun. (Well, I have my grandfather’s old .22 rife in storage somewhere, but that hardly counts)
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Oh, bullshit. “XXXX-nazi” is a colloquial term that means about the same as “XXXX-fanatics” or “XXXX-nuts”.
[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t buy that. I did notice that you capitalized Nazi in your original post. The more I think about it, the more I think that Godwin’s law has you in its unescapable grip.
I would be all in favour of amending the constitution to remove that provision. I think it’s out of place in the US constitution. Of course I realize that amending the constitution is difficult and on this issue will probably never happen in my lifetime.
My turn to say “so?” It is debated. I’m not one of those people that think that original interpretations have to be cast in stone and should never ever change. If the framers of the constitution had wanted to make the meaning unmistakeable they should have phrased it that way.
My point is that I think one can learn from other countries. I’m not the kind of guy that thinks “my country is always right and all those other folks can go to hell.”
This is where I disagree with you. I don’t think the answer is clear-cut. If it were as clear-cut as you see the debate wouldn’t be so prevalent. However, I don’t start out with the principle that all my opponents must be stupid and uninformed, which seems to be your position.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
I would be all in favour of amending the constitution to remove that provision. I think it’s out of place in the US constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, I think it is very much “in place” in the constitution. I read a wonderful article in defense of the Bill of Rights from a very liberal standpoint stating that it needs to be looked at as a whole, that the order is very deliberate and contributes to our understanding. The first amendment protects our innermost thoughts, the second our person, and so on outwards in broader circles, protecting the home etc. It’s not a perfect argument, and I am really not doing it justice because I don’t have the article in front of me, but certainly one can argue that no only should a constitution enshrine the right to effective self defense, but also that the US constitution does it in the right place.
villa, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights phrases it much better : “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (article 3) I am not opposed to the principle, but to the way it’s phrased in the US constitution.
Ah bu thow are you going to secure that? In a world where the government attempts to have the monopoly on the means to self defense, the right to self defense becomes pretty meaningless.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Yes, in the USA, there is a constitutional article with a debated interpretation. If the correct interpretation is individual gun ownership rather than state militias, then I view this as an oddity, I don’t know of any other modern country that has this in their constitution. It’s definitely not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By the way, is the 800 $ on your food bill example related to the gun issue? I don’t get it.
And to drive a car, people are supposed to prove that they can actually drive it (pass a driver’s test to show at least minimal proficiency). No such test when you buy a gun.
[/QUOTE]
In… in… Arnold, are you going to make me start debating the interpretation of the Second Amendment here? I will. It’ll just take a while. Can we hold off on it for a bit? It is unique, perhaps, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nice, but it’s not really American, is it? America is not the universe, it’s just America, and here, we have the right to keep and bear arms. If you want, I’ll get into the various interpretations. But not yet.
The $800 on the food bill: A deer is a lot of meat. You can save a lot of money by shooting, dressing, and butchering a deer. A side of cow is what, around $350? Two sides is around $700. Two deer a year is about $800 bucks of meat.
As far as the car goes, Arnold, you didn’t read what I wrote.
You do not need a driver’s license to drive a car.
Do NOT need. See? Michael Andretti could race all week without one.
You only need one to operate a car on a publicly owned street. This would be equivalent to an open-carry or concealed-carry permit, to take your gun walking around town with you.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
In… in… Arnold, are you going to make me start debating the interpretation of the Second Amendment here?
[/quote]
Actually no, we don’t need to debate it. That would be more properly for Great Debates anyway.
But I agree with some of what you say: guns for hunting I have no problem with. Guns for target shooting I have no problem with. Guns at home I have no problem with. Concealed carry weapons I have a problem with. If people are allowed to carry weapons in public then she should be forced to go through a class that teaches you how to use your gun, same as how a person has to prove they know the basics of driving a car before being allowed to drive in public. People walking around with concealed carry weapons should go through the same training a police officer goes through to have some preparation in how to deal with dangerous situations such as a firefight. If you don’t pass the test, you don’t get the permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Having the right to carry concealed weapons enshrined as a fundamental right in a constitution (such as the US constitution that is written to include only fundamental issues of governance): that I have a problem with.
People [del]are[/del] allowed to carry weapons in public [del]then she should be forced to go through a class that teaches you how to use your[/del] should have to demonstrate proficiency in the basics of using a gun …
They already do in Virginia. I don’t know about other states but CCW is a state issue.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
If people are allowed to carry weapons in public then she should be forced to go through a class that teaches you how to use your gun, same as how a person has to prove they know the basics of driving a car before being allowed to drive in public. People walking around with concealed carry weapons should go through the same training a police officer goes through to have some preparation in how to deal with dangerous situations such as a firefight. If you don’t pass the test, you don’t get the permit to carry a concealed weapon.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a problem with this if you’re going to handle it the same way driver’s licensing is handled: Once you pass the test and background check, then you have the right to carry any legal weapon anywhere at any time (Certain exceptions-prisons, courthouses, bars, etc..are reasonable). Fair enough?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
[T]he Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nice, but it’s not really American, is it? America is not the universe, it’s just America, and here, we have the right to keep and bear arms.
[/QUOTE]
Also, if someone is going to tell me “America is so different than other democracies that carrying weapons in public needs to be a fundamental human right, but it only needs to be a fundamental human right for us, not our neigbours across the pond or in the next country down south of us”, then I would disagree with that too.