Maybe I’m being obtuse - is this an attempt at being clever? If so you have failed. What point are you trying to make?
I note still no response to this:
I guess you’ve given up on that whole, “no ducking” mantra you are so keen on repeating.
C’mon now, there’s very little I’d start shooting government officials over. 
That your own cite disagrees with you.
Wrong. Scroll up. :rolleyes:
What assertion have I made that is contradicted by Heller? I challenge you to find one.
Nice handwave. Or as you would say, still ducking. This may take a few times to sink in, or maybe even more. Using smiley faces isn’t an actual cite. Feel free to try again.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
I’m replying to your fucking “point”. If you can’t defend it, not my problem.
[/QUOTE]
You were replying to my point with an apples to aardvarks analogy, since, as I pointed out, guns ARE in fact controlled and regulated. If you want to try and bullshit and weasel about it, that’s not MY problem, but, just as a pro-tip, folks can scroll up and see what was under discussion. 
But, nice use of fucking and all that false anger stuff to try and muddy the waters some. You do seem to be the master at trying to obfuscate the issue. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance try and baffle them with bullshit, ehe?
Uhuh. Sure man. IOW, you gots nuffin. Got it already…no further rolley eyes needed to make your point that you don’t have anything to back you up.
You don’t know and haven’t bothered to ask. Just strawmen and horseshit. Perhaps next time you might consider asking before deciding you know someones stance on something. Or, hell, try doing a search on my stance in other similar threads. Conversely, you could just keep talking out of your ass and making assumptions I guess.
No, there IS no ‘right’, defacto or otherwise, to safety…whatever the hell that even is. Certainly an ACTUAL right can be infringed on, it can be regulated and constrained, but it has to be more than a fantasy in your head to be reality.
I’d say that’s pretty obvious. Well, perhaps to everyone but you.
If we are going to go beyond the scope of your original flail which was frettage about Lumpy accidentally shooting you with his legally carried fire arm then we’d need to expand the scope on any comparison as well. I think that, if you were to bother actually looking into it you’d find that alcohol still kills more people in the US (certainly in Europe) than firearms do, even if you include every single death due to firearms for any reason, including suicide.
Straw must be on sale this week. I’d say you are in more danger of having all those strawmen you build catching on fire and killing you than all the guns in the world.
You of course, since you have nothing to back up your assertions but your own (perhaps feigned) indignation and foam.
Every day, I subject myself to the sanity of my fellow drivers on the road. Not just their good intentions but their competence as well.
It is clear that some people have an irrational fear of guns and until today I did not know there was a term for such a person Gun culture in the United States - Wikipedia (Thanks Bone: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16686428&postcount=196).
Thats not to say that a world without weapons wouldn’t be a better place, but there is just no way to get from here to there, politically, practically or from a policy perspective until we get gun ownership by criminals to an absurdly low level (when the regular beat cop feels safe responding to crime scenes with billy clubs and a can of mace). Unfortunately the hoplophobes keep focusing on banning black guns with bayonet lugs and forward pistol grips.
I can identify folks on your side of the argument that do the same thing. At least we call out the folks on our side of the argument from time to time. Bob Blaylock has been called out on his limited reading of the second amendment by several gun nuts on this board. I have yet to see anyone from your side call bullshit on some of the more extreme mebers of your side of the argument.
You are simply wrong. The first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Its as clear as fucking day.
And yet we make people who petition the government register as lobbyists. How can we do that without repealing my right to peition the government for a redress fo grievances?
We regulate the airwaves so that only license holders can transmit over the airwaves. Any Joe Schmoe can print a newspaper but if I tried to transmit the “Damuri Ajashi loves Guns and Obama” radio show over the airwaves, it would be illegal. How can they pass a law that abridges my right to effectively express my opinion in todays day and age without repealing the first amendment?
Rastafarians are not permitted to exercise their religion by smoking pot. How are they allowed to do that without repealing the establishment clause?
All rights are subject to reasonable interpretation and the second amendment has been interpreted to mean that you have an individual right to bear arms as part of your right to self defense (there may be additional state rights associated with the second amendment).
I think the support for universal background checks may be broad but shallow.
I think the instinctive distrust of gun owners of any further gun regulation is moderately broad and extremely deep. I mean seriosuly, if you thought universal background checks were guarnanteed to be the end of it, you’d probably go along with it, its just that you are pretty damn sure that people like Elvis and Dianne Feinstein aren’t going to drop the issue once they get background checks so you figure “why give them anything they want?”
I think that they could have gotten background checks at gun shows in the imediate aftermath of Newtown (and the disastrous response to newtown by Wayne LaPierre) but after months of demonizing gun owners and making stupid ignorant comments about “assault weapons” they just didn’t have the credibility to push it through and it gave plenty of cover for those politicians in conservative states to say no to everything… even something as ridiculously mild as background checks at gun shows.
Even the ten commandments are more subject to interpretation than Blaylock’s second amendment.
“Thou shalt not kill” seems pretty absolute. But most churches condone killing in self defense.
“Thou shalt not steal” seems pretty absolute. But I think the Catholic church has said that you are allowed to steal bread to feed yourself and your children
I think all of the commandments (except maybe the ones about sex) have some logical exceptions that are widely and commonly accepted.
Why does it matter what the purpose of the item is. Why isn’t the lethlity of the item (regardless of purpose) more important?
What does that mean “subjected to mortal danger”? How does that subject you to more mortal danger than walking next to a busy street where some crazy guy in a car can run you over?
People generally don’t want to kill each other. I’ve not only seen people swerve out of their way to hit other people, I’ve seen them swerve to avoid hitting a squirrel.
How many murders do you think are committed by people who are lawfully carrying a gun?
How many times are guns used in self defense?
What constitution that existed at the passing of the bill of rights made it clear that we could actually ban guns?
The Supreme Court that interprets the second amendment to have some limits is also the same Supreme Court that interprets the first part of the second amendment as not limiting the second part.
I think the same might be said of your reaction to guns.
The “support” among the general public for gun control in this country is so shallow that it strains the definition of the word “support”.
:dubious: What do you base this on?
Circular logic. You’re arguing that because the government does, in fact, routinely violate the Constitution, that it is allowed to do so.
And further, you are arguing that because the government gets away with one violation of the Constitution, that this means that it’s OK for it to engage in another, unrelated violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution cannot have any meaning, if government is allowed with impunity to go to the extremes that you defend in justifying random violations of it. Either the Constitution is the ultimate, supreme law of the land, which government is absolutely obligated to obey, or it is nothing.
[QUOTE=Bob Blaylock]
Circular logic. You’re arguing that because the government does, in fact, routinely violate the Constitution, that it is allowed to do so.
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t violating the Constitution, however. And I’d say it’s pretty good logic that if, in the real world, the Government IS in fact interpreting it to mean certain things and putting regulations and constraints on it based on their interpretation then ipso facto they ARE allowed to do so.
The Second Amendment states that the right which it affirms, “…shall not be infringed.” It does not suggest any circumstances under which this right may be infringed; it simply forbids it from being infringed. Period.
As a matter of undeniable, unalterable fact, any law which interfere in any way with the right of a free citizen to acquire, own, or carry a firearm, is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
As a matter of undeniable, unalterable fact, all gun control laws interfere, in some manner, with the right of a free citizen to acquire, own, or carry a firearm.
Therefore, as a matter of undeniable, unalterable fact, all gun control law violate the Second Amendment.
There is no spin that you can put on this to make it otherwise. All gun control laws are unconstitutional.
All public servants are sworn by oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and no public servant can have any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any gun control law without violating this oath.
And again, you’re simply resorting to circular logic. “Government IS in fact interpreting it to mean certain things and putting regulations and constraints on it based on their interpretation then ipso facto they ARE allowed to do so.” In other words, government is allowed to do so, because government is allowed to do so.
First off, thanks for taking the time to explain your position. At least I have a better idea of where you’re coming from now.
I don’t blame you for having great respect for the Constitution. I’m not even American and I respect it. I can thank the success of the American Experiment and its influence on the rest of the Western world for much of the quality of life I have today. For all that, though, the Constitution isn’t perfect (otherwise it wouldn’t have needed amending) and I think it’s a mistake to treat it so, especially more than two hundred years later. In that light, your defence of it comes across, frankly, as rigid and fanatical. But aside from that, what I really don’t get is the visceral hate for the gun control crowd. It’s one thing to disagree with them, but characterizing them repeatedly as liars and cheaters, and everything they do as corrupt and deceptive, hints at a deeper complaint than just constitutional matters. Did they drown your puppy or something? Wherever that hate comes from, it sure shuts the door on any reasonable conversation.
As inexpert as I am about the Constitution;), I do know that it didn’t spring whole from a burning bush. It was cobbled together piecemeal through messy negotiation and compromise by real people with strong differences of opinion. And the Bill of Rights was a last-minute act of appeasement, not a decree from above. If the Founding Fathers had been as fanatical and hateful as you’ve shown in your posts, the Constitution never would have happened and there’d be no America as we know it today.
It’s comparative, of course. I just get tired of using comparative qualifiers for everything. Well, not everything, but most things. And when I say tired, I don’t mean really tired, just kind of tired…
My point with this was to illustrate that you do not enjoy freedom from random violence. No one does, anywhere, ever. Unless you are willing and able to defend yourself should the need arise, you are abdicating that responsibility to others in hopes they will be able to do so where you could or would not.
People who support the RKBA for self defense and choose to carry have decided that the benefit of being able to defend themselves should they need to outweighs the cost (inconvenience, mostly) of carrying. You’ve said that if you need to carry then you are not free (paraphrased). But that’s not correct - it’s a choice.
It’s one thing to make that cost/benefit calculus and based on one’s own situation and come to a different result. Lots of people do and choose not to carry. It’s completely different to make that calculus and try to force that evaluation on everyone else. It’s not tyranny, but it certainly is reduced liberty.
Let me make this really simple. Simpler than I made it back in Post 218, which you seem to have ignored.
The Constitution contains more than just the 2nd Amendment. Really! Hard to believe, I know, but take a look some time and you’ll see. There’s pages and pages of other stuff. All of it part of the Constitution!!
Once you get over the shock of this discovery you will be able to see for yourself that “the rest” contains a provision whereby the Supreme Court gets to decide questions of constitutionality. The actual Constitution itself actually says that whatever the Supremes say is in fact and in law exactly what the Constitution IS – full stop. So the Constitution, despite your protestations to the contrary, is subject to interpretation by that branch of “the government” (your words) called the Supreme Court.
Note that “the government” in general does not have this power. No government functionary, from the President on down to the lowliest file clerk in the smallest and most obscure Federal bureau, has that power. There is nothing circular about it. All questions of constitutionality come to the Supreme Court and stop there. The Supremes then decide what the Constitution says, and what it means. And they tell us – well, actually they write to us – their interpretation. An interpretation that brooks no further re-interpretation by anyone except themselves or members of a future Supreme Court. In this context, “anyone” pointedly includes you.
And the Supremes have spoken on the 2nd Amendment, declaring the right to keep and bear to be somewhat less than absolute. Again, you’ve been invited to read about it, but apparently you decline.
That being the situation, your personal interpretation, while good for grins and giggles, is frankly ridiculous. As well as simply wrong.
All your link shows is that fewer people in the US are as interested about gun control as they are about the future of the economy. Will the unemployment rate every drop below 4% again? Will they be able to feed their families?
I’ll say this, again: Guns and cars kill the same amount of people (And cars have more non-fatal incidents than guns) every year and we have roughly the same number of both: approximately 35,000. Even if we take the non-fatal incident rates and add them in, it’s about 900,000 fatal and non-fatal gun incidents each year and roughly 10.5 million fatal and non-fatal car incidents each year.
Now take a look at the economy. Roughly 155 million people are currently employed in some capacity (ignoring underemployment, etc). If 63 million are minors under 16 and 33 million are retired, that leaves a work pool of roughly 214 million people.
In a country of 310 million people:[ul]
[li]How likely is someone going to be affected by guns? It’s very unlikely. 1 million incidents of 270 million guns (1 in 270) or 1 million incidents in 310 million people (1 in 310)[/li]
[li]How likely is someone going to be affected by cars? It’s unlikely, but not out of the question.10.5 million incidents in 250 (1 in 24) million vehicles or 10.5 million incidents in 310 million people (1 in 30)[/li]
[li]How likely is someone going to be affected by the economy? Very likely. You probably already are or know someone who is suffering. (1 in 4 of work pool, 1 in 6 of total pop)[/ul][/li]
So, what would you rate your highest priority if you were an average working joe? The unlikely incident that may acrete out of no where, or something that is very likely already happening to you?
Your link reflects that. It’s a poor indicator of what people would actually support on the subjects.
Like I said, it’s one aspect to look at, I never claimed it was the only one. Ultimately it’s one that maters however. People may support plenty of things. Until they get off of the collective asses and make a call or write a letter, nothing will change. Since the 1994 passage of the AW Ban, the pro-gun side has become very organized to insure that sort of ban never gets passed again. They are prolific letter and email writers and phone callers.
You posted in support of HurricaneDitka’s assertion that gun support is shallow or non-existent in this country. I was simply opining that the article mentioned did not support this supposition.
But people who support things like mental health care and background checks for all guns are worried that their wants will be changed to political hard balls. Take a look at the Affordable Care Act as a recent change: Most people wanted a better system for health care as our system wasn’t working heroically well. The ACA had millions of people come out and say “Nuh uh!” or even outright threaten their Congressional representation both before and after it’s passing. My own letter writing got a form response that boiled down to “I don’t care what my constituency thinks, I’m going to vote for it anyway!” (The local news about this response was…interesting to say the least.)
So, what makes more sense for you as a citizen who has an opinion somewhere in the middle of “ban everything” and “ban nothing”? Trust your representatives to do what you think will work, or assume that Congress couldn’t find it’s ass with both hands without a gold plated LeerJet and an expedition paid for by special interests and stone wall any change that might make things worse (or maintain the status quo which may be “super bad” but isn’t “Terrible”)?
IIRC, the discussion of pools in the past was related to the overblown hoplophobic perception of the dangers of owning a gun with kids in the house. The lack of similar concern about pools is a reasonable point to bring up. noone is saying that gangangers kill each other with drive by poolings.
If you could just stick with this stuff and stay away from the second amendment “shall not be infringed” stuff, you’d be doing us all a favor. there are a lot of gun rights supporteres here and youar e teh only one that thinks that the second amendment is not subject to interpretation (like I said before, the ten commandment are subject to interpretation (thou shalt not kill in the context of self defense).
Considering your insistence that the prefatory clause limits the operative clause in some way, I don’t think you’ve read it yourself.
Nobody tries to ban cars the way they try to ban guns based on this “right to be free from mortal danger” that you made up.
How many defensive gun uses are there every year?
You do realize that we have gun regulations right? Just not the ones that you want.
And frankly we have some that many gun owners DON’T want.
Does this apply to your imaginary “right to be free from mortal danger” (which seems a lot more like "right to be free from the fear caused by hoplophobia).
And how many defensive gun uses are there every year?
I think you are adopting a reading of the constitution that no legal scholar (gun nut or otherwise) has adopted EVER. The constitution has been "interpreted since at least 1803, are you saying that the cosntitution has not had any meaning after the first 16 years of its exxistence?
The supreme court’s authority as the final arbiter of what the cosntitution means was established in 1803 in Marbury v Madison.
A lot of issues of law has to do with what words mean. Your interpretation of the operative clause of the second amendment without any reference to the prefatory clause shows that you are engaging in the interpretation of the second amendment. What makes your interpretation any more valid than Elvis’s?
In fact for a long time there were many legal scholars (I would say most but then someone would ask for a cite so…) who thought the prefatory clause limited the operative clause so that the second amendment right was a state right and not an individual right. Even among those scholars that thought that there was an individual right, they did not think that the second amendment was the only part of the constitution that was not subject to interpretation.
So I can have a nuclear missile?
How about mustard gas and a vial of smallpox?
When you take these absolute positions you invite the reductio and the absurdium.