Summations Only

Total crap. You have esteemed company in the Supreme Court in ignoring the leading qualifier of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...", but the position itself is nonsense.This shouldn't have to be explained yet again, but what the heck. Say you have an amendment that says:

quote:

---

"The need of farmers to irrigate their crops to provide sustenance to the nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of farmers to draw as much water as necessary from local water sources shall not be infringed."

---

A farmer builds himself a water bottling plant and begins selling Farmer's Pure bottled water. During a water shortage he draws so much water from local sources that his neighbors don't have enough water for their own crops, and they take him to court. It eventually arrives at the Supreme Court which rules that the amendment means that the farmer does indeed have a right to the water, that it is an inherent right. This would make as little sense as the Supreme Court's current position on the Second Amendment. Which, allow me to emphasize, is only their *current* position.If I could editorialize a bit, even the slightest acquaintance with history informs us that the world has been a dangerous place in many times and places, and that self defense would have been important. But as societies become more civilized the need for self defense lessens and eventually crosses a threshold where defensive weapons provide a much greater threat to their owners and everyone they know than to anyone else. We crossed that threshold a long time ago in the United States.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Huh? No it doesn't. The leading qualifier make absolutely clear that it doesn't: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."If the Second Amendment truly read as though gun ownership were a natural right it would have begun something more like, "There being certain inalienable rights of man,..."--Percy

People arming themselves is the entire cause of gun violence. Disarming people is the best answer, though there are stopgap measures such as using technology to make guns safer.You're arguing that people should have the right to place themselves and those around them in greater danger. As far as placing themselves in greater danger, maybe you have a point, though I'm not so sure. After all, there *are* such things as seat belt and helmet laws. But as far as placing others in greater danger, no, they do not have that right, and that's what people are doing when they buy guns.--Percy

Hopefully this is sarcasm. Is there a missing ? I've posted as moderator a few times, but only very generally and hopefully with great circumspection. Anyone who wants to see my posts as moderator should click here. Certainly I've never taken the position about restricting discussion that Jon expressed.--Percy

Just as your right to extend your fist ends at my nose, your right to arm yourself for self defense ends at other people's right to live their lives in safety. In purchasing a gun you place yourself and those you know in greater danger. If you don't care about yourself then at least care about others. As are guns.--Percy

What I'm hearing from you is: We can tell what side of the issue you're on, we can tell you don't agree with us, and you've told us your specific position on a few things, but not much else and certainly no supporting arguments. You seem intent on disagreeing and criticizing while not putting forth any actual specific arguments.--Percy

You're embracing nonsense. This is impossible to argue against. You're like Trump who, for example, when challenged on his attitudes about woman responded (paraphrasing), "So?" He has no shame, no embarrassment, no remorse, no conscience. How does one argue with that?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Just, FYI, that is still a bald declaration with no supporting arguments.More cars mean more vehicle fatalities, more backyard pools mean more accidental drownings, more guns mean more gun deaths. Guns are the only item in this list that have no useful purpose for your average citizen. We know many people *think* guns have a useful purpose for self defense, but the evidence shows that they're mistaken. The evidence says that guns increase the risk of injury and death, both to oneself and one's friends and family.I'm know I'm hammering on a very narrow point, but it is by far the most important point. It doesn't matter what rights are natural, legal or otherwise. It doesn't matter what the current position of the Supreme Court is. It doesn't matter how many deaths are due to other causes like cancer and cars. What matters is that the best way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns. The next best way is to improve gun safety technology, for example, so they can't unintentionally fire at people or can't be fired by non-authorized people (this is the approach that worked so well for automobiles, though the car industry had to be prodded by government). The next best way is to improve guns laws and enforcement of those laws (this is the approach that doesn't work so well for automobiles, and it wouldn't work so well for guns, either).--Percy

NN already thoroughly rebutted these arguments. I don't understand why you are reasserting these points as if you were completely unaware of the very strong counterarguments?--Percy

Uh, Jon, first, in that first quote you're quote mining and making it seem I was saying something I wasn't, since I followed that sentence with this: Second, those posts were as Percy, not as Admin. I'm not moderating this thread, and I have no interest in moderating this thread. As a participant I do have a right to express my opinion as to the topic, particularly since I'm the originator, but my opinions carry no administrative weight.If you truly believe I've been abusing my moderator powers then the place to take such complaints is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.--Percy

Well, I guess that's one opinion, but you need to do better than just type a bunch of words and declare victory. Victory in debate is decided by the audience, not the participants. And in particular victory isn't a matter of merely remaining convinced within one's own mind that one is correct.I'll stay out of the constitutional/legal discussion you and NN are having. My primary interest lies elsewhere.--Percy

I can see now that while attempting to follow along that I haven't properly kept Cat Sci's and Jon's arguments separated in my mind. I'm just going to stay out of it for now.--Percy

I looked at the Heller Ruling to help me understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in ignoring the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment. What they're doing is obvious right on page one:

quote:

---

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

​

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

---

So though the purpose of the Amendment is to help maintain a "well regulated militia," the Supreme Court maintains that that purpose has no bearing on what it calls the "operative clause" about the right to "keep and bear arms."What if I said to my children, "Since getting to and from school and the library is essential to your education, I shall not infringe upon your right to own and operate motor vehicles." Did I just give my kids the right to drive their cars wherever and whenever they want? The Supreme Court sure thinks so.We need a new and very clear amendment. All it needs to say is, "You can't just have guns willy-nilly, they're dangerous."--Percy

Cat Sci, Jon and Faith are arguing that this:

quote:

---

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

---

Means precisely the same thing as this:

quote:

---

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

---

I can't see how that is possible or makes any sense.--Percy

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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.