Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 3991 of 5179 (766046)
08-10-2015 9:16 PM


Amendment, Schlemendment
What the Second Amendment actually means is irrelevant. Even if the Second Amendment inarguably guaranteed and protected everyone's right to own and bear arms whenever and wherever they pleased, guns still present a greater net danger to their owners and their friends and family than to any criminal. Most gun deaths are needless where no one would have died had there been no guns.
The Second Amendment is not a license to dismiss gun deaths by blaming them on human failings that will never, ever, go away, like ignorance, passion, carelessness, drunkenness, lack of training, etc. These failings are present in all aspects of human life, and so we design our laws and our tools to take them into account. Arguing that guns are some kind of exception to this custom and so the killing must go on unimpeded is unpardonable.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3997 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2015 11:17 AM Percy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3992 of 5179 (766052)
08-11-2015 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3990 by herebedragons
08-10-2015 8:40 PM


Wait... are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our creator? Or are you merely suggesting that the founding fathers saw it that way?
Rights that pre-existed the constitution could simply be rights that another government or society had conferred the people. Those rights don't necessarily come from God or as a result of natural rights. HBD
My very first suggestion was that the pre-existence of the right that is so clear in the wording might refer simply to the fact that they were free to possess arms in the colonies without restriction.
Then I considered the idea of natural rights which is so clear in the Declaration of Independence, but whether the right to be armed was thought of in those terms I don't know.
I could also go back to my first post on this thread where I quoted from a discussion of the earlier history of the right which emphasized the threat of tyrannical kings / government.
My main interest was in the phrasing of the amendment which so clearely identifies it as a pre-existing right whatever the source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3990 by herebedragons, posted 08-10-2015 8:40 PM herebedragons has not replied

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 3993 of 5179 (766058)
08-11-2015 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3978 by Faith
08-10-2015 1:56 PM


Not according to the grammar of the wording I quoted, which clearly evokes a right already in existence before the writing of the Constitution.
As a woman I'm sure you're familiar with this :
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
The 19th amendment, granting voting right to women.
So let me ask you Faith, according to your grammar, does it clearly evokes a right already in existence before the writing of the Constitution?
Edited by Bliyaal, : Fixed a typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3978 by Faith, posted 08-10-2015 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3994 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2015 9:23 AM Bliyaal has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3994 of 5179 (766059)
08-11-2015 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3993 by Bliyaal
08-11-2015 8:28 AM


So let me ask you Faith, according to your grammar, does it clearly evokes a right already in existence before the wrinting of the Constitution?
Or prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment? This is the question I have been trying to get Jon, Cat Sci and Faith to answer. Are all the rights preexisting just because of the particular grammar used? If not, how do we tell which were?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3993 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 8:28 AM Bliyaal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3995 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 10:41 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 3999 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2015 11:32 AM Theodoric has not replied

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 3995 of 5179 (766062)
08-11-2015 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3994 by Theodoric
08-11-2015 9:23 AM


You're absolutely right, I was just using her words to make it obvious that it didn't make sense. I don't understand why they're making a great deal about the way it's written when the meaning behind is clear. I guess that's their last resort since they won't answer anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3994 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2015 9:23 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3996 by Tangle, posted 08-11-2015 11:02 AM Bliyaal has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 3996 of 5179 (766066)
08-11-2015 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3995 by Bliyaal
08-11-2015 10:41 AM


Funny how it has to be written on a piece of paper to be a natural right; God given or otherwise. It seems that a natural right is anything that we decide it shall be.
In any case, it must mean that it's ok to own a small armoury. 'tis a weird world we live in.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3995 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 10:41 AM Bliyaal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3998 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 11:24 AM Tangle has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 3997 of 5179 (766070)
08-11-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3991 by Percy
08-10-2015 9:16 PM


Re: Amendment, Schlemendment
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
Arguing that guns are some kind of exception to this custom and so the killing must go on unimpeded is unpardonable.
Why don't you argue as hard on banning automobiles as you do about banning guns?
quote:
Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.
Automobiles are more dangerous than guns so why not the same outrage against cars as there is about guns?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3991 by Percy, posted 08-10-2015 9:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4000 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 11:35 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 4009 by xongsmith, posted 08-11-2015 12:05 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 4012 by Percy, posted 08-11-2015 12:36 PM ICANT has not replied

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 3998 of 5179 (766072)
08-11-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3996 by Tangle
08-11-2015 11:02 AM


The concept of natural right is meaningless to me.
I could play a different word game too! If it's a natural right to have weapons, I would insist on the world natural. A gun doesn't occur naturally. I'm fine with them carrying sticks and stones if they want to as long as they found them on the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3996 by Tangle, posted 08-11-2015 11:02 AM Tangle has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3999 of 5179 (766073)
08-11-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3994 by Theodoric
08-11-2015 9:23 AM


Or prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment? This is the question I have been trying to get Jon, Cat Sci and Faith to answer. Are all the rights preexisting just because of the particular grammar used? If not, how do we tell which were?
If you think that women should always have ought to been able to vote, then one way to phrase that is to say that they have a natural right to vote. That means that the right "existed" before the 19th amendment.
Since we're talking about something that ought to be, rather than something that is, then we're not talking about something that is tangible, or that really "exists" in the normal sense of the word.
You can tell what natural rights exist by what you think should have ought to have been. If you outright deny that women had a natural right to vote before the 19th, then you are saying that you don't think that they should have ought to have been able to vote before the 19th was passed.
If so, then given the question of whether the should be allowed to vote, you would need some sort of reason to grant them that ability.
On the other hand, if you do believe that women should have always been allowed to vote, then the question of whether they should be allowed to is already answered, and you don't need any reason to grant them that ability, but rather you can just tell everyone to stop denying them the right.
The particular grammar used is not what causes a right to be preexisting. The grimmer hints at the mentality behind the authors of the amendment.
As the 19th was written, it shows that the authors were, actually, of the mentality that women do have a natural right to vote, even before the 19th was passed.
What that means is that they didn't think there needed to be a reason to grant women the right to vote, it was something that they always should have been able to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3994 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2015 9:23 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4002 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 4000 of 5179 (766074)
08-11-2015 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3997 by ICANT
08-11-2015 11:17 AM


Re: Amendment, Schlemendment
First, we're not talking about banning guns, only a better regulation, you know like with cars.
Second, how can you compare a gun and a car? One is designed to kill and the other is designed to transport. That should tell you something.
It's fun to compare the numbers of deaths but you should compare the number of deaths versus number of usages. How often do you drive a car and for how long? How often do you shoot with a gun?
Please try a better argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3997 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2015 11:17 AM ICANT has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 4001 of 5179 (766075)
08-11-2015 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3978 by Faith
08-10-2015 1:56 PM


Faith writes:
We can go on to consider your question of course, but not if you are denying the clear meaning of the text as not granting but protecting a pre-existing right.
But it's a fundamental question, and one that you answered - the right to gun ownership is granted by the Creator God. I'm sure the Taliban and friends agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3978 by Faith, posted 08-10-2015 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


(1)
Message 4002 of 5179 (766076)
08-11-2015 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3999 by New Cat's Eye
08-11-2015 11:32 AM


So Tangle was right, a natural right is anything you want it to be.
It find it funny that now you're arguing that maybe sometimes mentality changes but when we're saying that the time has come to do some changes you fall back to what you think the original text says.
Edited by Bliyaal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3999 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2015 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4004 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2015 11:48 AM Bliyaal has not replied
 Message 4005 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2015 11:49 AM Bliyaal has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 4003 of 5179 (766078)
08-11-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3979 by New Cat's Eye
08-10-2015 2:19 PM


Cat Sci writes:
From United States v. Cruikshank:
quote:
"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."
Your own quote shoots you in the foot. The amendment applies only to the federal government; thus it can not be any kind of "natural right" that pre-exists the federal government - i.e. the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3979 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2015 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4006 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2015 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4004 of 5179 (766079)
08-11-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4002 by Bliyaal
08-11-2015 11:43 AM


It seems he truly cannot see the hypocrisy and how his argument changes completely depending on the point he wants to make at the moment.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4002 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 11:43 AM Bliyaal has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4005 of 5179 (766080)
08-11-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4002 by Bliyaal
08-11-2015 11:43 AM


So Tangle was right, a natural right is anything you want it to be.
Well, you should be honest with yourself.
But yes, you can imagine all kinds of different ways in which you think things ought to be.
It find it funny that now you're arguing that maybe sometimes mentality changes but when we're saying that the time has come to do some changes you fall back to what you think the original text says.
lol wut?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4002 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 11:43 AM Bliyaal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4011 by Bliyaal, posted 08-11-2015 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024