Gun Nuts Attack Gun Nut

The BBQ Pit
261

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Yes, the word “right” definitely appears, and I never argued to the contrary. What is at issue (and I would have thought this to be obvious by this point) is precisely what that right entails. If you want to argue your right to participate in an armed state militia, I won’t disagree with you. It’s only to the extent that you claim a right to own as many weapons as you like, of any kind, for your own personal use in personal self-defense or recreation, that we have a disagreement.

For what it’s worth, I think Cecil’s argument is interesting and well-articulated. However, there are some very good counter-arguments as well. First of all, to compare the Second Amendment, with its qualifying first clause, to the First Amendment, which contains no such opening clause, is misleading.

First Amendment:

There is no opening clause here. If the framers were in the habit of including gratuitous opening clauses that have no effect of the legal ramifications of the amendment, why no opening clause in the First Amendment? Yes, the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly, but then it isn’t specifically qualified in any way other than that it applies only to Congress making laws.

Now let’s look at the 3rd Amendment:

This amendment IS qualified, i.e. “in time of peace”. Surely you wouldn’t argue that, if a proper law were passed to make provisions for housing soldiers, during wartime that it would be unconstitutional. The unconditional aspect of this right only applies in times of peace.

To argue that an amendment that has some qualification to it, should be interpreted as broadly as amendments that have no qualifications, is misleading. The argument that Cecil is arguing against is NOT the argument I am making. It’s really a strawman. The issue isn’t whether the Second Amendment should restrain states, but rather whether it is an individual as opposed to a collective right.

You have a right to bear arms, and you can interpret this right as broadly as you like, to the extent that you are exercising that right via your participation in a state militia.

You have a right to bear arms IF you are in a militia, just as…

You have a right not to have soldiers quartered in your home IF we are at peace.
[/QUOTE]

However, the 2nd’s explanatory clause is not an “If” clause like in the 3rd. It is a “Why” clause.

Why do the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
Because a free state is a good thing.
How do we ensure a free state?
A well regulated militia.

Now - what is a free state? Is this discussing the individual states? The Nation state as a whole? The concept of the citizenry living in a “free” fashion in their respective state?

What is well regulated? Well armed? Well trained? Well organized?

It is true (again, IMHO) that the Founders did not mention hunting in the reasoning. That is because if you would have told them that they needed a specific right layed out for hunting they would have laughed at you. Of course you can go hunting. As for self defense - dueling was a legal way to settle disputes. Indians still raided in the frontier. Pirates roamed the ocean. Of COURSE you can arm yourself to defend yourself.

262

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Yes, the word “right” definitely appears, and I never argued to the contrary. What is at issue (and I would have thought this to be obvious by this point) is precisely what that right entails. If you want to argue your right to participate in an armed state militia, I won’t disagree with you. It’s only to the extent that you claim a right to own as many weapons as you like, of any kind, for your own personal use in personal self-defense or recreation, that we have a disagreement.

For You have a right to bear arms, and you can interpret this right as broadly as you like, to the extent that you are exercising that right via your participation in a state militia.

You have a right to bear arms IF you are in a militia, just as…

You have a right not to have soldiers quartered in your home IF we are at peace.
[/QUOTE]

You should’ve kept reading Cecil. He directly contradicts you. From the same thread linked above:

“While the first half of the Second Amendment is no miracle of clarity, the second half is about as plain as it can be. ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ But gun-control advocates deny this sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often framed … it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.
However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons.”

263

[QUOTE=Algher]
In terms of the Consitution, the question is always (IMHO) “Does the government have the right to regulate this particular part of the nation?”

Remember, the Constitution specifically outlines what the government is allowed to do. They are not SUPPOSED to do anything else. In fact, much of the what the Federal government does is done only through the outridge bastardization of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Luckily the SC has been stopping a few of those overreaches in recent years.

Now, the BOR was written because even though the Constitution supposedly limited the government to only that which was specifically outlined, many of the folks wanted further assurances that the Federal government would not intrude into their lives. So, we get the various guarantees of personal liberties outlined in the BOR on top of the specific delination of what power the Federal government has.

When we get to the 2nd Amendment and its horribly written syntax, we find a declarative clause (The Right of The People…) and an explanatory clause (Well regulated militia). The People part of it is remarkable consistent with the rest of the People oriented amendments. Nowhere else in the BOR do we find a need to add in additional powers of the Fed. It stands to reason (again, IMHO) that the 2nd, like the 1st, tells us specifically yet another area that the Fed can not intrude. It just adds in an explanatory clause in regards to protecting the free state.
[/QUOTE]

I think a good argument can be made that FEDERAL gun-control laws are unconstitional. But then, if the federal govt. only did what the Constitution says is can do, things would be much, much different than they are. So this raises the question, “Why make a stand on federal control in this one issue only”? Because it suits your agenda in this case? If you’re making the case that the federal govt. should only do what it’s expressly authorized to do in the Constitution, you probably have a good point. But then we’re so far away from such a case, why even bring it up?

So, does the FEDERAL govt. have the power to regulate guns? Probably not, because technically they don’t have any powers not expressly granted by the Constitution, right?

But the REAL issue here is whether STATES have the power to regulate guns. And again, if you contend that state gun-control laws are improper, you need to demonstrate, unambiguously, why such laws are expressly forbidden.

264

[QUOTE=Lizard]
You should’ve kept reading Cecil. He directly contradicts you. From the same thread linked above:

“While the first half of the Second Amendment is no miracle of clarity, the second half is about as plain as it can be. ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ But gun-control advocates deny this sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often framed … it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.
However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons.”
[/QUOTE]

And let us not forget that, the citizens of the time were able to purchase weapons and other militaria of roughly the same technology and capabilities as the militaries of the time. Even cannon were not excluded from this; some private entrepeneurs owned them to equip their merchant vessels, for instance. Is there reason to believe that, considering the state of weapons technology at the time, the framers of the BoR meant anything OTHER than “roughly-military-equivalent firearms and weaponry”? Beyond that, I don’t have much to add, except that the How and Why peeled out earlier as explanatory are, I believe, right on target. In the mindset of the time, considering what they’d come through and what technology was available to the average (or wealthy) citizen, there was simply no reason to detail it further.

265

[QUOTE=Lizard]
You should’ve kept reading Cecil. He directly contradicts you. From the same thread linked above:

“While the first half of the Second Amendment is no miracle of clarity, the second half is about as plain as it can be. ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ But gun-control advocates deny this sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often framed … it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.
However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons.”
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, but I read the entire article. I think it’s obvious that I do not agree with Cecil. I actually think this is the weakest argument he makes. He’s actually arguing that we should only read the second half of the sentence and ignore the first half. That’s preposterous. As far as whether it’s “silly”, I think we covered this already. Take a look further up in the thread.

I’d be willing to bet that Cecil is a gun-owner.

266

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I think a good argument can be made that FEDERAL gun-control laws are unconstitional. But then, if the federal govt. only did what the Constitution says is can do, things would be much, much different than they are. So this raises the question, “Why make a stand on federal control in this one issue only”? Because it suits your agenda in this case? If you’re making the case that the federal govt. should only do what it’s expressly authorized to do in the Constitution, you probably have a good point. But then we’re so far away from such a case, why even bring it up?

So, does the FEDERAL govt. have the power to regulate guns? Probably not, because technically they don’t have any powers not expressly granted by the Constitution, right?

But the REAL issue here is whether STATES have the power to regulate guns. And again, if you contend that state gun-control laws are improper, you need to demonstrate, unambiguously, why such laws are expressly forbidden.
[/QUOTE]

I make a stand on Federal control in a lot of areas, this thread just happens to be about gun Guns GUNS! (Robocop)

The Feds regularly steps over what I think they should.

Now, should states be allowed to control what the Fed cannot? Interesting question. Can the state house a cop in my home in time of peace? Can the state outlaw the church, or control speech or the press?

Personally, I think that if the Constitution states that something is the right of the People, then NO level of government should be allowed to infringe. This has also been the thought process of the Supreme Court, which is why we don’t have speech regulated at at different level at the state level vs. the Federal level.

So - if the states are not allowed to control speech due to 1st Amendment rights, then they should not be allowed to control guns due to 2nd Amendment rights.

267

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Thanks, but I read the entire article. I think it’s obvious that I do not agree with Cecil. I actually think this is the weakest argument he makes. He’s actually arguing that we should only read the second half of the sentence and ignore the first half. That’s preposterous. As far as whether it’s “silly”, I think we covered this already. Take a look further up in the thread.

I’d be willing to bet that Cecil is a gun-owner.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure that Cecil’s potential possession of firearms makes his opinion less than worthy as you seem to imply. Else we could argue that you must not have any guns, and thereby imply that you have no real standing either.

Cecil did not state that the explanatory clause should be ignored, rather that it has been applied in such a way to be completely counter to what the Amendment means.

Of course, by this I state that the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights refers to the rights of the same people who are referenced in the rest of the Amendments.

See, it is just that far of a stretch to state the the Founders were talking about the People’s rights in the 2nd. It takes much more convoluted reasoning to try to claim that the Founders tossed in a little state’s right’s clause in the midst of a stack of individual rights pieces.

268

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Thanks, but I read the entire article. I think it’s obvious that I do not agree with Cecil. I actually think this is the weakest argument he makes. He’s actually arguing that we should only read the second half of the sentence and ignore the first half. That’s preposterous. As far as whether it’s “silly”, I think we covered this already. Take a look further up in the thread.

I’d be willing to bet that Cecil is a gun-owner.
[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all; he’s saying that if we treat both clauses of the amendment equally, they cannot contradict each other. But the way the courts have interpreted the amendment gives the first clause precedence over the second, for no apparent reason. I would say the reason is to give ground to partial public opinion on the matter, but he addresses the fairness of that earlier. Sure, the courts can interpret the Constitution to fit what some people want at a given time, but they don’t do this for other parts of it. How is it fair to do it here?

As to Cecil probably being a gun owner, I would say one does not have to have had one’s house ransacked by the police to support the Fourth Amendment, or been arrested and questioned to believe in the Fifth. One does not have to be black to believe in the Fifteenth amendment, or a woman to believe in the Nineteenth.

269

The Embarrasing Second Amendment

It’s a good read.

Dr. Levinson

270

[QUOTE=Algher]
However, the 2nd’s explanatory clause is not an “If” clause like in the 3rd. It is a “Why” clause.

[/quote]

Yep. It’s poorly written. Hence the controversy.

Yeah, I understand the NRA’s argument; I just disagree with it. Like I said, if the first clause is merely a superfluous explanation, why didn’t they likewise feel the need to include a superfluous explanation of why free speech is important, or why freedom of religion is important?

Sorry, but I don’t find this argument convincing. In effect, all you’re saying is, “Naturally I’m right - don’t be silly”. You’re saying that they included a superfluous explanation of one reason why people would need to own guns, but left out the other reasons because they were so obvious? But the one they did include (for no particular reason) wasn’t obvious? That’s way too many assumptions.

271

[QUOTE=Lizard]
No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all; he’s saying that if we treat both clauses of the amendment equally, they cannot contradict each other. But the way the courts have interpreted the amendment gives the first clause precedence over the second, for no apparent reason.

[/quote]

How do you figure? The interpretation is that you DO have a right to a gun, to the extent that you are in a state militia. That’s giving consideration to BOTH clauses. Cecil so much as WRITES that he favors giving the second clause more weight:

You cannot isolate a clause from a sentence and claim that its meaning is independent of the rest of the sentence. Consider:

“If I get cancer, I’m going to die.”

“I’m going to die.”

Do these two sentences have the same meaning?

“Wearing a dress, I look like a woman.”

“I look like a woman.”

Same meaning?

No, of course not.

I don’t believe I said any of those things would be true. In those cases, I think support for those principles is more universal. But in the case of the Second Amendment, I think it is quite polarized, with most (but not all) gun enthusiasts embracing the ‘absolute right’ interpretation, and most (but not all) gun opponents embracing the ‘not an individual right’ interpretation.

272

[QUOTE=Algher]
I am not sure that Cecil’s potential possession of firearms makes his opinion less than worthy as you seem to imply. Else we could argue that you must not have any guns, and thereby imply that you have no real standing either.

[/quote]

I never said he didn’t have standing.

You could argue that my abhorrence of guns makes me biased, and that would be valid. And that’s my point - almost nobody is neutral in this debate. Cecil’s a smart guy, but you all seem to want to laud his opinion as gospel. And you seem to be overlooking the obvious bias in the piece he has written simply because you are on the same side of the debate.

What if I started quoting Micheal Moore? I bet you guys would have something to say about that.

That begs the question. What the Amendment means is precisely what is at issue.

O.K., but you’re inventing a stawman argument, i.e. “The people in the Second Amendment are not the same as the people in the First Amendment.” I never made such an argument.

The argument I did make, is that the right is QUALIFIED.

See, this is what I was talking about earlier. You guys tend to ignore the arguments people actually make in favor of the standard pro-gun talking points.

You don’t believe the Second Amendment was about states rights vs. federal government? That’s a pretty widely accepted historical view. It’s interesting that gun-advocates only seem interested in historical background when it suits their agenda. :dubious:

273

Even if you were right, which you’re not, nothing would require anyone owning a gun to be in a state militia. The militia is what is supposed to keep the state (country) free from tyranny, foreign and domestic.

Despite what you might think, the founders were not stupid men. They were well aware that the word ‘states’ and the word ‘people’ look very different and mean different things. And if they had meant to write ‘states’, that’s the word that would be there.

If anything, the introductory clause to the Second Amendment says that the founders believed any state (country) risked losing its freedom from tyranny and oppression if the people could not own arms. They equated keeping guns in the hands of the people with being in a free state (country).

274

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

First Amendment:

There is no opening clause here. If the framers were in the habit of including gratuitous opening clauses that have no effect of the legal ramifications of the amendment, why no opening clause in the First Amendment? Yes, the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly, but then it isn’t specifically qualified in any way other than that it applies only to Congress making laws.

[/quote]

There are state constitutions that have similar wording for amendments not dealing with guns. I’d have to search through old 2nd amendment threads to remember which ones, though.

But some have wording to the extent of “A free press being necesary to a free state, the right of the people to speak freely…” - you wouldn’t interpret that as only members of the press having free speech, right?

But it’s not a conditional statement. It’s not If/then. It’s an unconditional statement with an explanation.

What exactly does this “collective right” mean? That the government can abridge and even outright eliminate this right all together at their discretion? Then it’s not a right at all.

You’re essentially saying that the second amendment says “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, except that it can be infringed and entirely eliminated should the government choose to do so”, which would make it a completely useless amendment.

“Collective rights” sound like the sort of freedoms that those in the USSR enjoyed.

What do state militias have to do with this?

The unorganized militia of the United States accounts for all able bodied men, 17 to 45. This is still current, as there are still federal laws which deal with this. And this is what they intended, if you read what they wrote - the whole of the people, essentially, comprises the militia - not specific organizations.

This is really just stretching it beyond any meaning. The third amendment is clearly an if/then, but the second amendment isn’t.

I would happy to voice my opinion that the Federal government vastly oversteps its bounds and should be fixed. This just happens to be a gun thread. You’re trying to create hypocrisy where there hasn’t been any.

Isn’t the whole point of the 13th amendment that the limitations on the federal government infringing on rights also apply to the states?

You seem to essentially be saying “the people” in all of the other amendments means each individual person in the US, and yet, “the people” in the second amendment refers to states rights.

It’s stretching what was actually written past the breaking point because it’s what you want to believe. If you read the works of the people who actually wrote the Constitution. it’s very clear that this is not the intent they had.

For what it’s worth, I suggest doing a search on “second amendment” in GD. We’ve had discussions that have gone on to great length about this. I’m not really in the mood to rehash all of the arguments entirely.

275

[QUOTE=Renob]
BS. Guns are used for a lot of things besides people killing people. For example, I thoroughly enjoy target shooting. Others enjoy hunting. Many enjoy the aesthetics of firearms and collect them for that reason. There are many reasons to own a gun besides the desire to kill another person.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. Unless you enjoy owning a collection of guns whose barrels have all been filled with metal to render them forever useless, there is one reason to own a gun: because it allows the gun owner/holder to feel in the palms of their hands the ultimate power we humans can have- the power to take away someone else’s life.

I detest guns, but I understand the aesthetics involved in a beautifully crafted machine. That is a straw man argument at best to defend people who collect many working firearms. That is not why you own firearms. That is why some people collect new or antique weaponry and have them forever disabled by filling the barrels and removing other active bits. Then, as a beautifully crafted device, a bit of machining that is elegant, you betcha. That argument stands very nicely at that point.

Deciding never to use a weapon for anything other than target hunting in a safe target range environment is a decision. It does not take away from the fact that when you are holding a loaded functioning weapon in your hands, you hold the ability to take away another human being’s life in your hands. The N.R.A. is not fond of publishing statistics on gun deaths in the U.S.A., and they are especially not fond of accidental gun deaths that occur either in an outdoor hunting environment or when a child happens upon a gun. This is because it drives home exactly what I am saying. The ability to take a life suddenly because one is holding or using a gun is a very different thing than deciding to do so. Unfortunately for living beings, that difference is irrelevant once you’ve been killed with a gun. The survivors get to debate on and on, the victim is simply dead.

To argue against the inherent power of holding a functioning loaded gun is to live in a carefully crafted world of self-denial. (Working) guns can kill with a speed that is unparalleled in modern life. That power is intoxicating.

Cartooniverse

276

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Not really. Unless you enjoy owning a collection of guns whose barrels have all been filled with metal to render them forever useless, there is one reason to own a gun: because it allows the gun owner/holder to feel in the palms of their hands the ultimate power we humans can have- the power to take away someone else’s life.

[/QUOTE]

There is one reason to own a car: because it allows the car driver/holder to feel in the palms of their hands the ultimate power we humans can have - the power to take away someone else’s life.

There is one reason to own a bow.

There is one reason to own a sword.

There is one reason to own a chainsaw.

There is one reason to own a maul.

There is one reason to take karate lessons.

Dude, get off the high horse. There are very few dangerous weapons. (The type 14 Nambu Pistol is one, being capable of firing when breathed on funny.)
There are only dangerous people.

I use knives. I use 'em a lot. For whittling, for fixing problems with component housings, for modeling, for cutting meat, for cutting cheese, for cutting apples. Are you going to say the only reason to own one is to kill someone?

I grew up shooting. You know why? There was a pond out back of the house, where ducks liked to land and swim. We fed them. Thing is, there were also swamp rats back there, that would tear the ducks’ throats out while they were sleeping. We didn’t favor that much. Couldn’t trap them, they wouldn’t fall for Havaharts, and anything else could hurt the ducks or dogs or rabbits. Couldn’t poison them for the same reasons. Couldn’t find their burrow, it was on someone else’s land.

So I sat up on the deck and shot them one by one. Took a month or three, but there havn’t been swamp rats back there for twenty years, now.

You still going to tell me ‘the only reason’?

You know, you can’t rely on all black bears to be scared of declawed cats.
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/06/10/picture_of_the_4.php

And we still get rabid raccoons now and again. Sometimes rabid dogs.
How would you deal with them before they run off and infect something else?

277

[QUOTE=catsix]
Even if you were right, which you’re not, nothing would require anyone owning a gun to be in a state militia. The militia is what is supposed to keep the state (country) free from tyranny, foreign and domestic.

[/quote]

O.K., you’re completely missing the point. You’re coming at this backwards. The question at hand is, “Are states constitutionally barred from enacting gun-control laws if they so desire”. Again, to demonstrate that states are barred from enacting gun-control laws, you would have to show that the Constitution explicitly protects every person’s individual right to own a gun, in an unqualified way.

It’s not, “You have to be in a militia if you own a gun”

It’s, “You only have an unqualified right to bear arms if you are in a militia.”

I feel like you aren’t following the conversation here.

Strawman.

Are you also aware that the words “hunting” “recreation” “personal self-defense” and “well-regulated militia” look very different and mean different things? It’s interesting that you folks argue “if they meant it they would have said it”, while it suits your purpose, but then switch to “Oh, well it’s obvious” when your meaning is left out.

Almost universally, gun-advocates argue “historical context” when it suits their purpose, but flip-flop to “strict reading of the text” when that suits their purpose. A couple pages back I was lambasted by another gun-advocate for taking the text too literally.

No, they equated a well-regulated militia with being in a free state. Again, there’s absolutely nothing in that amendment about personal self-defense, hunting, or recreational shooting. And like I said, if the first clause is superfluous explanatory material, why is there no superfluous explanatory material in any of the other amendments?

278

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
“A free press being necesary to a free state, the right of the people to speak freely…” - you wouldn’t interpret that as only members of the press having free speech, right?

[/quote]

That’s not what it says. Lets not wander off into hypothetical land, o.k.?

You didn’t read what I wrote. You’re just repeating the same argument after I already responded to it.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT QUALIFIED.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS QUALIFIED.

I NEVER, EVER argued that the same words mean different things. That is a strawman. Please, go back and read my previous arguments.

If you’re such a history buff, you know that the state militias didn’t own enough guns, and people had to bring their own. Didn’t we cover this?

But people needed to have a gun to be in the militia. Those kinds of militias don’t exist any more. If those kinds of militias still existed, I would agree that people would have a right to keep guns. I don’t understand why you believe that, since that situation doesn’t exist anymore, that you just get to transfer the right to a completely different situation.

I could have sworn we covered all this already.

Ah, the flip-flop back to “historical context.” It’s just anything goes with you guys.

If you want to rail against a strawman that I never argued, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

That’s what I meant earlier about the “talking points”. One of the NRA talking points is that their opponents think “the people” means something different in the 2nd Amendment. I can explain the issue a million times, but you will continue to argue against that strawman.

Why don’t you do that? I’ve been in many, many discussions, which is why I am weary of the same shit over and over. I’m sort of regretting getting drawn into this one.

279

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Yep. It’s poorly written. Hence the controversy.

Yeah, I understand the NRA’s argument; I just disagree with it. Like I said, if the first clause is merely a superfluous explanation, why didn’t they likewise feel the need to include a superfluous explanation of why free speech is important, or why freedom of religion is important?
[/QUOTE]

Because the BOR was written in committee, with multiple revisions?

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

Sorry, but I don’t find this argument convincing. In effect, all you’re saying is, “Naturally I’m right - don’t be silly”. You’re saying that they included a superfluous explanation of one reason why people would need to own guns, but left out the other reasons because they were so obvious? But the one they did include (for no particular reason) wasn’t obvious? That’s way too many assumptions.
[/QUOTE]

Superfluous to whom? A Primary reason doesn’t negate other reasons as well. Which is the crux of the “Individualists” argument, and the wedge the “Collectivists” insist on pushing into the debate. As far as the “Collectivists” can, they want to continually parse “good guns” from “bad guns,” “good reasons” from “bad reasons.” It’s not that we “Individual Right” types don’t understand the mindset (and tactics!) behind such thinking, because we do understand it. All too well.

And we reject it.

If we reject your argument, it’s not because we are “narrow minded,” “self deceptive,” “delusional,” or any other derogatory adjective you care to hang on us, no matter how nicely you gussy up your words.

It’s because your arguent has been made more eloquently, more knowledgeably, and more insidiously over the last three decades, and serious legal scholars have thoroughly debunked it.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

What if I started quoting Micheal Moore? I bet you guys would have something to say about that.
[/quote]

Unlike Michael Moore, Cecil does his research. See the numerous threads here in which M. Moore has been fairly debunked on a couple of issues.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

O.K., but you’re inventing a stawman argument, i.e. “The people in the Second Amendment are not the same as the people in the First Amendment.” I never made such an argument.

The argument I did make, is that the right is QUALIFIED.
[/QUOTE]

Neither I nor the NRA ever claimed the RTK&B was absolute; no right is. Your 1st Ad. rights give you no freedom to say dangerous things (yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, slander, incitements to violence, etc.).

Similarly with the 2nd., it’s guarantee is not absolute. As Cecil also said, even if everyone agreed that the 2nd Ad. guaranteed an individual right, the legislative landscape vis-a-vis firearms probably wouldn’t look significantly different than it does now.

There are certain people who should not have firearms; as such I have no problem with background checks, and regulating the most powerful types of weapons (fully-automatic), as well as explosives and destructive devices.

But there does come a point when regulations become effective restrictions, then effectively bans, and quite a few gun control enthusiasts don’t seem to want to acknowledge or respect that such a line actually exists outside of the minds of us “Gun Nuts.”

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]

Deciding never to use a weapon for anything other than target hunting in a safe target range environment is a decision. It does not take away from the fact that when you are holding a loaded functioning weapon in your hands, you hold the ability to take away another human being’s life in your hands. The N.R.A. is not fond of publishing statistics on gun deaths in the U.S.A., and they are especially not fond of accidental gun deaths that occur either in an outdoor hunting environment or when a child happens upon a gun. This is because it drives home exactly what I am saying. The ability to take a life suddenly because one is holding or using a gun is a very different thing than deciding to do so. Unfortunately for living beings, that difference is irrelevant once you’ve been killed with a gun. The survivors get to debate on and on, the victim is simply dead.

To argue against the inherent power of holding a functioning loaded gun is to live in a carefully crafted world of self-denial. (Working) guns can kill with a speed that is unparalleled in modern life. That power is intoxicating.
[/QUOTE]

The statistics on accidental deaths are nothing to be ashamed of, and to my knowledge, the NRA doesn’t hide them, or otherwise dread them being made known. FWIW, accidental deaths due to automobiles, drownings, poisonings, fires, falls, and choking, all come in a good deal ahead of accidental deaths due to firearms. Considering the number of firearms we have in this country, that’s a pretty damned good statistic for firearms.

As far as “intoxicating power” goes, I’ve never picked up a firearm and began thinking of all the ways I could kill people, and had some sort of orgasmic power rush; to think that most gun owners do is to subscribe to a hokey stereotype perpetrated by Hollywierd and Must-See TV.

I think of firearms in much the same way that I consider my other tools, such as wrenches, screwdrivers, pliers, and power tools: how well is the tool crafted, how well does it perform its design function, and how much does it cost?

I can as easily say too many people get behind the wheel of powerful cars and begin thinking of how fast they can go, notwithstanding the fact that accidental automobile fatalities outstrip total firearm fatalities by a factor of about 20-to-1, even though the number of guns and the number of cars in the USA are much of a sameness.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]

For what it’s worth, I suggest doing a search on “second amendment” in GD. We’ve had discussions that have gone on to great length about this. I’m not really in the mood to rehash all of the arguments entirely.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

Why don’t you do that?
[/QUOTE]

How’s about the fact that his join date is August, 2001, and yours is November of last year, and that he’s been in probably dozens of these debates here on the SDMB, whereas you haven’t? That maybe you need to bone up on what’s been said here, in a forum such as GD, in order to properly grasp the breadth and depth of knowledge that such people bring to the table in these discussions?

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

I’ve been in many, many discussions, which is why I am weary of the same shit over and over. I’m sort of regretting getting drawn into this one.
[/QUOTE]

Then perhaps you should start listening to what people are saying to you, reading and comprehending the numerous cites supplied in these GD threads to which Sensor refers.

You might come to a greater appreciation for the considerable body of scholastic work supporting an “Individual rights” view, which vastly outnumbers the hadful of works supporting a “Collective rights” view of the 2nd. Amendment.

280

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Because the BOR was written in committee, with multiple revisions?

[/quote]

How does that relate in any way to the point that the 1st has no explanatory clause and the 2nd does?

I’m not sure what your point is. If you’re trying to say: “Every amendment is different”, then that would blow the other point being made on your side that certain language (like “people”) has exactly the same meaning in each amendment. So I don’t think you really want to go down that path, do you?

It’s not my point, it’s the pro-gun argument. Your side is arguing that “A well-regulated militia being necessary…” is merely an explanatory clause, and doesn’t affect the legal ramifications of the amendment. In other words, the argument is that it’s legally superfluous.

That’s just NRA blather. I made no such arguments.

Please try to read my posts more thoroughly. Don’t latch onto one word and make assumptions about what I said. I argued that the right exists only to the extent that one is a member of a state militia. That’s a qualified right, as opposed to an absolute right where anyone can own any kind of gun for personal use. You’ve strayed completely away from my argument.

Yawn… How typical. You just can’t have a discussion without being condescending and failing to acknowledge that 2 sides of the issue exists. If someone disagrees with you, it must be that he is ignorant, and you are so much more educated. How arrogant.

Like I said before, all you can do is argue, “I’m right and you’re stupid.” :rolleyes:

EDIT: Actually, let me amend that. I will say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the cogent arguments several of you are making. So I shouldn’t lump you all in with Ex-Tank. Ex-Tank has the arrogant attitude I’ve encountered so often in the past in these kinds of arguments.