# Donald Trump winks and nods to the Second Amendment people **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 9, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283 "2016-08-09T22:03:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/441 "2016-08-19T18:10:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not at all. It’s like saying the US Army doesnt attack US civilians on US soil, then someone dragging out the time where some cannon accidentally discharged and hit a house. That may make sense if you don’t think about the analogy and how it doesn’t make sense at all. In the cannon example, the army never intended to fire the cannon and never intended to hit a house. In the gun confiscation example, the state has setup a system specifically to confiscate weapons, and in fact did so intentionally, in exactly the manner you said doesn’t _ever_ happen. Most of the people that they confiscate from are probably justified in that they are prohibited. That doesn’t change the fact that they have made at least one mistake and intentionally confiscated someone’s gun in a way you said never happens. In fact, it did happen and you were wrong. Yes it was an error, but not an error of intent - the error was in record keeping. Can this happen again? Almost certainly because humans make mistakes and there is a system established to go door to door, with a list, and confiscate weapons. If I said, cops never search a person’s house without a warrant or exigent circumstances that would be wrong - they do. Sometimes in violation of people’s rights, and sometimes by mistake. It does happen though. It’s unfortunate you don’t seem to want to acknowledge your mistake. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/442 "2016-08-19T18:13:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That may make sense if you don’t think about the analogy and how it doesn’t make sense at all. In the cannon example, the army never intended to fire the cannon and never intended to hit a house. In the gun confiscation example, the state has setup a system specifically to confiscate weapons, and in fact did so intentionally, in exactly the manner you said doesn’t _ever_ happen. > > Most of the people that they confiscate from are probably justified in that they are prohibited. . Again, taking guns from convicted felons doesnt count. Actually, they are supposed to turn them in. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/443 "2016-08-19T21:04:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That may make sense if you don’t think about the analogy and how it doesn’t make sense at all. In the cannon example, the army never intended to fire the cannon and never intended to hit a house. In the gun confiscation example, the state has setup a system specifically to confiscate weapons, and in fact did so intentionally, in exactly the manner you said doesn’t _ever_ happen. > > Most of the people that they confiscate from are probably justified in that they are prohibited. That doesn’t change the fact that they have made at least one mistake and intentionally confiscated someone’s gun in a way you said never happens. In fact, it did happen and you were wrong. Yes it was an error, but not an error of intent - the error was in record keeping. Can this happen again? Almost certainly because humans make mistakes and there is a system established to go door to door, with a list, and confiscate weapons. > > If I said, cops never search a person’s house without a warrant or exigent circumstances that would be wrong - they do. Sometimes in violation of people’s rights, and sometimes by mistake. It does happen though. > > It’s unfortunate you don’t seem to want to acknowledge your mistake. So your argument is that there shouldn’t be a change to the system because people make mistakes. Forgive me if I don’t find that compelling in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/444 "2016-08-19T21:51:32Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > So your argument is that there shouldn’t be a change to the system because people make mistakes. Forgive me if I don’t find that compelling in the slightest. Your powers of interpretation have failed you. There is nothing I’ve written that could be construed in the way you interpreted them. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/445 "2016-08-19T22:01:20Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > So your argument is that there shouldn’t be a change to the system because people make mistakes. Forgive me if I don’t find that compelling in the slightest. If mistakes are sufficiently rare, then, yeah. No change is necessary. Do you imagine that enough regulations and reforms can allow us to achieve a perfect society, where mistakes don’t happen? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/446 "2016-08-19T22:09:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If mistakes are sufficiently rare, then, yeah. No change is necessary. > > Do you imagine that enough regulations and reforms can allow us to achieve a perfect society, where mistakes don’t happen? It’s just a re-interpretation of the old argument that I’ve seen trotted out with many iterations: “If regulations can’t be perfect, or perfectly enforced with 100% success, then why bother having them at all?” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/447 "2016-08-19T22:10:17Z")
Maybe we should get back to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/448 "2016-08-19T22:22:24Z")
Reasonable people could enact some form of compensation for someone wrongly denied the opportunity to have a weapon. Approach is important too, one should not be harshly demanding, as that arouses enmity. Better to be polite, deferential and disarming. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/449 "2016-08-19T22:29:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Maybe we should get back to the OP. Hey, perhaps thus will be the thread where someone changes their mind about guns. Wouldn’t want to miss that, would you?? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/450 "2016-08-19T22:52:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That may make sense if you don’t think about the analogy and how it doesn’t make sense at all. In the cannon example, the army never intended to fire the cannon and never intended to hit a house. In the gun confiscation example, the state has setup a system specifically to confiscate weapons, and in fact did so intentionally, in exactly the manner you said doesn’t _ever_ happen. > > Most of the people that they confiscate from are probably justified in that they are prohibited. That doesn’t change the fact that they have made at least one mistake and intentionally confiscated someone’s gun in a way you said never happens. In fact, it did happen and you were wrong. Yes it was an error, but not an error of intent - the error was in record keeping. Can this happen again? Almost certainly because humans make mistakes and there is a system established to go door to door, with a list, and confiscate weapons. > > If I said, cops never search a person’s house without a warrant or exigent circumstances that would be wrong - they do. Sometimes in violation of people’s rights, and sometimes by mistake. It does happen though. > > It’s unfortunate you don’t seem to want to acknowledge your mistake. I don’t even support gun control in the same sense that most liberals do, but this strikes me as a really bogus, nitpicky, and borderline desperate argument. A real stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/451 "2016-08-20T00:59:04Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If mistakes are sufficiently rare, then, yeah. No change is necessary. > > Do you imagine that enough regulations and reforms can allow us to achieve a perfect society, where mistakes don’t happen? No, I imagine that the fact that humans make mistakes isn’t an excuse for _not_ enacting change. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/452 "2016-08-20T01:44:18Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I don’t even support gun control in the same sense that most liberals do, but this strikes me as a really bogus, nitpicky, and borderline desperate argument. A real stretch. It is nitpicky, which I acknowledged. It’s also a correction of a factual error. It’s kind of what is normal on this board. Except when it comes to issues relating to guns. In those cases, sloppiness is par for the course and given a pass. I actually have no objection to the program in CA in principle. But when they make mistakes through poor procedures or sloppiness it should be acknowledged. And when errors are made so should they. A cite that contradicts and assertion should yield a restatement, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/453 "2016-08-20T02:46:59Z")
Again, let us get back to the OP. Bone your absolutist views on gun control are not shared by many and it is clearly useless debating with you. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/454 "2016-08-20T02:54:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Again, let us get back to the OP. > > Bone your absolutist views on gun control are not shared by many and it is clearly useless debating with you. It has nothing to do with pro or con gun control. You made a factual error. I’m not arguing in favor or against anything here other than for accuracy. Your statement, “not ever”, was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/455 "2016-08-21T03:59:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This statement just isn’t accurate. Well allow me to take you at face value because I live in Canada (or Soviet Canuckistan as you may know it) and we have gun laws. We still have gun violence here, absolutely. Some nutcase got all the way into the Centre Block of Parliament before he was stopped by a man wielding a gun. The US equivalent would be someone making it into the West Wing of the White House before getting gunned down by Secret Service. But we don’t need no secret service, we’ve got [Kevin Vickers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Vickers). In any case, I have made the supposition that the POTUS is essentially powerless in the gun debate. You think I am wrong. Please elaborate. I feel that if Obama had the power to lay down some laws he would have done so already. I know he’s tried with some executive orders and I feel fairly certain that those executive orders have already been overturned by the courts. But I am happy to admit I could be wrong and I appreciate you educating me on this subject. So please, do tell. What can Obama do and most importantly, why isn’t he doing it? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/456 "2016-08-21T04:11:12Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > But I am happy to admit I could be wrong and I appreciate you educating me on this subject. So please, do tell. What can Obama do and most importantly, why isn’t he doing it? Did you read [post #425?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19563972&postcount=425) Let me know which part you don’t understand or disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/457 "2016-08-21T14:50:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Because it’s wrong. Not explicitly wrong, but it’s misleading enough to be wrong. While it’s true that a future President Clinton doesn’t have the ability to single handedly take people’s guns away, she would have the power to appoint judges. Those judges will rule on the constitutionality of future attempts to further restrict the ability of people to purchase and possess guns. That legacy will have legs, and in the future the actions of a President Clinton could realistically impact the right of people to own guns. > > Heller was 5-4. If GWB isn’t elected, and Alito and Roberts aren’t on the court and instead their spots were filled with people more aligned with Ginsburg, do you think Heller would have had the same result? And if Scalia and Thomas weren’t on the court as well? Clinton has stated she believes that Heller was wrongly decided. Is there any doubt she’d have no qualms about appointing judges who feel similarly? It’s not just at SCOTUS either. At the lower court level where the cases originate those hurdles will grow larger with more Clinton appointments. > > So Clinton can not directly come and take people’s guns, but she can create an environment where it’s easier to do so. Places like Montana and Utah will likely see no impact. But places like CA, NY, NJ, HI - those places will have no chance of regaining their rights under the nominees of a President Clinton. > [@Bone](#): > > Did you read [post #425?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19563972&postcount=425) Let me know which part you don’t understand or disagree with. You’re saying that the Supreme Court could declare that certain, limited gun control laws are constitutional. Therefore no rights will have been violated. I’ve said here before that the entire 20th century history of the Supreme Court can be summarized as reversing every earlier case they had decided. I have no doubt that the 21st century will continue that trend. I know that both sides score decisions as wins or losses and right or wrong. Either way, our “rights” are what the latest Supreme Court decision determines them to be. There is no Platonic set of R_I_G_H_T\*S in a golden bowl high in the sky. And the President does not have and will not have the ability to take away peoples’ gun rights, no matter how you twist your logic. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/458 "2016-08-21T16:28:48Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re saying that the Supreme Court could declare that certain, limited gun control laws are constitutional. Therefore no rights will have been violated. Do you think that SCOTUS could theoretically rule any direction on any issue without violating a person’s rights? I don’t. I think their ruling would be consistent with our system of government and such ruling would be definitionally constitutional, but a person’s rights could still be violated. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/459 "2016-08-21T17:02:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you think that SCOTUS could theoretically rule any direction on any issue without violating a person’s rights? I don’t. I think their ruling would be consistent with our system of government and such ruling would be definitionally constitutional, but a person’s rights could still be violated. What do you think? You are arguing religion, not politics. Do I personally think that rights have been violated by laws upheld by the Supreme Court? Sure. Do I think that all those reversed decisions I mentioned undid some of the damage? Sure. Do I think you would agree with me on every case? Of course not. And that’s where it ends. As soon as you try to claim there is one higher version of R_I_G_H_T\*S that everybody acknowledges, your whole edifice comes crashing down. I don’t define rights as you do. I claim that things you deem to be rights are no such thing. That’s fine here on a message board, but the country can have only one legal definition at a time. If that definition were obvious and accepted by all, _then the Supreme Court would never have to rule on any cases to begin with_. Heck, _four people actually on the Supreme Court_ disagreed with your definition of rights in the Heller case. It’s all arbitrary lines drawn through grayness. And the grayness changes over time along with the sentiment of the American people. They deal with it by voting. Congress changes. The President changes. The legal world changes along with them. But the President never grabs guns. Never. You can’t make that case believable. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283/460 "2016-08-21T20:46:40Z")
I’ll note that Exapno Mapcase’s view on rights appears broadly consistent with that of **Bricker** , who pushes this POV with some level of contained exasperation. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > And that’s where it ends. As soon as you try to claim there is one higher version of R_I_G_H_T\*S that everybody acknowledges, your whole edifice comes crashing down. I don’t define rights as you do. I claim that things you deem to be rights are no such thing. As a formerly active member of Amnesty International, I’d like to qualify that. I do think there are universal human rights: those are human rights that are… universal. In other words, no non-trivial set of politicians are willing to stand up and say, no, this is not a right. By that definition and awkwardly, the 2nd amendment may be a right, but it is not a universal right. Because most democratic countries don’t recognize it as such. “The right to bear arms makes about as much sense as the right to arm bears”, according to this view, common in most parts of the world. Furthermore, I do think that moral rights are coherent concept, independent of legal rights. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.” ## I add, by way of defining my terms: those who abridge moral rights can be morally condemned. Yes, that is tautological: it’s a part of a definition. Responsibilities are the flip side of rights, because rights involve the responsibility not to infringe on the rights of others. Exapno Mapcase could reply that there’s a lot of grey area and room for debate. I don’t dispute that. I’m just saying that the concept of rights is a coherent one in a non-legal context. I furthermore add that it’s not merely a matter of taste, like the preference for color is. It can be discussed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trump-winks-and-nods-to-the-second-amendment-people/762283.md?page=24)