Or in a “worst-case” scenario, maybe even Chris Brown.
Guys, you made my point. It’s what I meant. Look at animals, they don’t know what rights are, they just do what they do. That’s the wild and we’ll act just like them in it.
Only in societies and governments do rights exist. You can do this and you can’t do that, that’s the rules we set. None of that are god given.
By the way, we give rights to animals so that they are protected.
Correct to your first two points. I tend to agree with you that viewing through a historical lens, the Second Amendment was not focused on personal self defense, however that is not what Heller said.
Heller said that the right of self-defense predates the Second Amendment and does not depend on the Second Amendment for its existence; that right comes down from the English Common Law that we inherited and used for our own purposes. It is one of those fundamental rights that is intrinsic in our society and one that no proper government, based upon our founding ideals, should intrude upon. The Second Amendment simply gives a legal hook to owning militia weapons.
Contrary to some on my side, I don’t believe that Heller was the best written opinion what with its ipse dixit about guns in schools, and its unsatisfying treatment of fully automatic weapons. I’m not saying that the Second must go so far as to permit fully automatic weapons, but if you are going to say it does not, then you have to do better than the “in common use” argument Scalia used when it is blindingly obvious that the reason that these guns are not in common use is because they have been effectively banned for the past 85 years.
It seems that in the Second Amendment context, if a government can unconstitutionally ban, or even steal or destroy a particular type of weapon, then that unlawful action allows a new constitutional floor that legitimizes it.
Let’s assume for the purposes of argument that your last point is correct that most people who argue about the right of self defense are self-important tough guys who are overreacting and really have little to worry about. I don’t see how that changes things.
Free speech, for example, is not there only to protect the most eloquent and knowledgeable speakers. It is there for less desirable speech as well such as flag burning, wearing “Fuck the Draft” t-shirts, and having KKK marches in town. I don’t think it is proper to argue or suggest that perhaps we should not have self-defense or free speech because some people don’t use their rights in the correct fashion.
Do you believe that a debate on having a policy of killing all brown people v. not killing all brown people is just a societal construct where each side has competing points? In your worldview, what baseline do you use to suggest that one is better than the other?
Hey, nobody’s perfect. :rolleyes:
You keep repeating this as though you think it somehow serves your argument, whatever that is.
If I had to guess what the purpose of this argument is, you’re claiming that humans cannot distinguish right from wrong, and won’t know whether killing browns is good or bad without external help, e.g. guidance from God or the FFs.
Is the inference supposed to be that we’re lucky God (or the FFs or XX*) told us “guns are good” since otherwise we’d be at the mercy of ordinary mortals? Mortals unable to know whether killing browns is good or bad and therefore also apt to come to the erroneous conclusion that guns are bad?
And then you throw in “Heller” as though a 5-4 Scotus decision is some magical affirmation of God’s Will or Natural Rights or Whatever-the-heck you’re talking about. :smack:
I’m sure this is a caricature of your position, but I have no idea what your position is.
-
- I write “XX” to denote the source of your “natural rights,” whatever you conceive It to be. We’ve been trying to explain, in different ways, that your notion of “natural rights” is confused. (And if you’re going to continue on this line, please make up your mind whether the "FF"s were ordinary mortals or had some privileged insight no longer available to today’s humans.)
NETA: I’m actually rather neutral on the whole question of guns’ goodness/badness!
But I find it astounding to listen to gun lovers express their love. Sometimes it seems not entirely unreasonable to conclude that their opinions are not entirely reasonable!
I’m not sure how to clarify.
What I am saying is that killing people in society is wrong, not because we have a statute against murder, or a Constitution which says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. I am saying that murder is inherently wrong because that individual has a natural right to life that no proper government can take away from him.
You seem to not subscribe to the natural rights theory. If you do not, then what is the source of your belief in right and wrong such that you can say with confidence that murder is wrong, period. Or is it just that it is wrong because it is the law and that we could legitimately legalize it tomorrow?
It’s a hobby. Do you have one? Have you not heard a car guy say he “loves” his car? Or a lady say she "loves’ her record collection? Or a horsewoman for her horse?(Ok, I get that animals can return love to a extent, so they can be a exception), or a sports fan for his team? That last gets to crazy extremes, no?
My main hobby is table top games, mostly D&D, and sure I “love” playing D&D.
I DO have a sense of right and wrong. I do NOT attempt to map this to some “natural rights theory.” (Do you have a cite where I can read what that term even means? Is it specific to humans, or are animals also bound to some “natural law”?)
I DO think a person has the right to defend himself and his family. I do NOT jump from that assertion to concluding that every redneck imbecile should have the right to wander through pizza shops with his AR-15 looking for Hillary’s slaves.
I DO think there should be a debate about guns and gun control. But I would focus on the objective merits rather than some fictitious interpretation of “natural law”, or the existence of the 2A, or a 5-4 Scotus decision, or what some right-winger *thinks *the FF’s might have meant.
Is this all clear? Is my position all so unreasonable? Does it warrant your bemusement about whether I need to read a lawbook to guess whether “killing browns” is good or bad? 
:mad:
I wrote poorly if I implied that it is wrong for a gun lover to be passionate about his hobby. Hobbyists don’t bother me; hunters don’t bother me; legitimate self-defense needs, when legal, don’t bother me.
It’s the one-issue obsession, the nattering about “natural rights”, the treatment of guns as a surrogate for penis and/or the Messiah, the bizarre unique-to-America infatuation with “gun rights” that reduce me to exasperation and make me pity the country of my birth.
I have seen car lovers and sports fans do the same. Yes it is sad, but it’s across the spectrum of many male dominated hobbies. And by no means is it unique to America.
Hobbies can be silly. My own hobbies may be silly. I disapprove of soccer hooliganism. But …
Bass fishing. Stamp collecting. Carrying guns around with a round in the chamber and a viscous mentality. Table tennis. Square dancing.
Which item in the above list is different from the others?
You don’t want to be viscous. Guns work best with a light oil, not grease.
hehehehe
See, you had to add “a viscous mentality”. Football fans are dangerous with a viscous mentality. Street racers-are dangerous with a viscous mentality. Martial arts-are dangerous with a viscous mentality,
And you clearly dont know much about guns when you add "with a round in the chamber ".
Also open carry and Concealed carry practitioners have a lower violent crime rate than the general population.
Yeah, I remember the discussion about an FBI agent whose Glock went off in a crowded bar while he was doing back-flips. My suggestion that he might have uncocked his gun was met with ridicule! “Nobody carries without a round in the chamber. What an idiot Septimus is.”
Nobody was hurt when the Glock went off accidentally. I guess that proves I was wrong. :eek:
This post right here shows that you don’t know anything about guns. Which is fine, but if you’re trying to propose rules or regulations or laws about guns (“People shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns around with a round in the chamber! They should have to uncock them first! Otherwise they might go and do a back-flip, and accidentally shoot someone!”) you really, really need to educate yourself on the subject.
(There’s another thread going on the boards right now which led me to this fun word: ultracrepidarian.)
Just as a point of information, Agent Dance-Pop’s Glock didn’t just “go off”. He pulled the trigger (because he is an idiot), and a man was shot in the leg as a result.
ETA: Agent Dance-Pop’s actual name is Chase Bishop. Fuck that guy.
Ahem. Vicious. Not viscous.
That is all.