Summations Only

My position has not changed. The Constitution, the way it is written, the things that is says, the words that it uses, how it speaks, it talks of the rights it mentions as being natural ones that already exist and not legal ones that it is granting.

From United States v. Cruikshank:

quote:

---

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...

---

I found some more quotes:

quote:

---

It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights does not grant people the listed rights. The Bill of Rights simply guarantees that the government will not infringe upon those rights. It is assumed that the rights pre-exist. It is an important distinction. source

---

and:

quote:

---

What is a right, and where does it come from? A right is a power or privilege that is recognized by tradition or law. Natural or human rights are inherent to human nature; they are not given by government, but neither does government always protect them. Legal rights are those recognized by government, but they can often be taken away as easily as they are given. Throughout U.S. history, many Americans have sought to protect natural rights with law. Indeed, rights form the core of the American experience. As noted by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution: America has always been about rights. . . . While many nations are based on a shared language or ethnic heritage, Americans have made rights the foundation of their national identity. source

---

. From that first source:

quote:

---

The Bill of Rights, which is recognized as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, lists many rights of individuals. It is important to note here why the a bill of rights was not originally included in the Constitution. Most of the Framers felt that any power to infringe upon individual rights would not be legal under the Constitution, since the power to infringe was not granted to the United States by the Constitution. But the arguments of the people who supported a bill of rights eventually prevailed, and guarantees were added to the Constitution within a few years.

---

And this source does go on to describe later amendments as also being natural rights, despite your insistance that having a right to vote, outside of a legal system, is something that is ridiculous and therefore cannot be the case. There is no such thing as an unfettered right. Sure, but again, a legal denial of a right does not eliminate the natural right.The right of individuals to arm themselves goes waaay back, before the U.S. even existed. Like, all the way back to Aristotle. It was even in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Was it even questioned?

They were "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties". They were talking about their natural rights, as opposed to the divine rights of kings. As I've been saying, the point is about the mentality behind it.Some people here think that they shouldn't be allowed to do anything until their government enables them to by granting them the right.That's the wrong mentality. It should be the opposite:You free to do what you want until the government says that you cannot.So when it comes to the question of whether we should "let" individuals arm themselves, then we've already started off on the wrong foot. And if you deny that people have the right to arm themselves, then you've already lost before we even got out of the gate.The way our Constitution is written, as individuals we have had the right to arm ourselves since before the U.S. existed. This is also evident outside of the Constitution, itself, going way back in time across multiple cultures. There are source links inside the first two quote boxes. Actually, I was hoping to learn about more cases to read.

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.

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. lol wut?

Its an ought, not an is. Nothing is required to exist for an ought to be there.

The ability to keep and bear arms is what ought to be. That is what cannot be infringed. A government denying you a right does not mean that it shouldn't ought to be."Not is" does not mean "ought not".

Well, 2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides, and I think people have the right to choose to die, so those aren't really worth pursuing reducing. There are people who make rash decisions for suicide, and that is a shame, but the avenue to solve that involves mental health care not gun laws.The other ~12,000 gun deaths per year amounts to about 0.4% of total deaths (in the U.S.), so I don't see gun deaths as something that particularly needs reducing. We have way more important things to worry about.But if I did, I'd go with stronger sentencing on existing gun crimes. Like, really severe out of balance sentences. For one, you keep the people who are willing to use guns illegally off of the streets, and for two, hopefully the strength of the sentencing will dissuade other people from committing future gun crimes. It'd take a few years to balance out, but I do think that would reduce gun deaths.What I don't think should happen is reducing the rights of law abiding citizens, nor removing their ability to make the decision for themselves if they should have a gun or not.I don't think that making gun deaths out to be some kind of severe catastrophe that we just have to address, nor pointing that there are dangers associated with gun ownership, will carry any weight for the pro-gun crowd. So those arguments are practically worthless.Too, the Fallacy of Composition isn't helping. Like, I'm not married and don't have kids, so the danger to those two are immediately removed from my personal risk assessment for gun ownership. Pointing out that I'm more likely to shoot my wife or kids than a criminal carries exactly zero weight for me. Too, I have been explicitly threatened with violence from gang members that are acquainted with me, so I do have a little something to worry about.Also, since the deterrence of crime cannot be measured, statistics on how likely you are to "shoot a criminal" are fairly meaningless to me too. I think that the prevalence of guns does deter crimes like burglary and assault, but that's never going to be captured in the stats.But I'm definitely willing to trade the lives of a handful of felony gang members fighting turf wars in the city to prevent the rape of my neighbor who writes children's' books.

No shit, Sherlock.And just because it ought to be doesn't mean it has to be. What the Second Amendment SAYS just shows what the authors thought should ought to be. And the reality is that individuals ought to be able to arm themselves.

I am?

I did? Huh? You didn't see me going against my own argument like I go against my love of guns?I'm not following you. In my mind, I don't know. Read the words, stick to the position. Forget the person, and reply to what was actually written.This whole interpreting arguments into what I must really be meaning just does not work. What argument have I refused to respond to?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Why didn't you respond to the part of my message that explicitly answered your question? Why did you ask? Ridiculing them doesn't help. And when you drop the value-human-life card like that, you're just begging people to bring up the fact that when you're focusing so much on such a small subset of human-deaths that are happening all around us, then you're insincere if you act like its the value of human life that is driving your behavior (as opposed to your irrational fear of guns). Its that attitude that draws out the 'what about cars' lines.For me, its not about the gun. I don't even really like my current handgun that much.But I do value my ultimate ability to defend myself over that of the life of a stranger. It doesn't even have to be about guns, we can just talk about "weapons". I'd rather not get into the semantics, though, but please humor me.Anyways, I want to be able to own a good weapon. I feel that I have the right to that. I don't need to carry it on me all the time, but I think every home owner should have one somewhere. Some kind of weapon, I would hope. I learned that lesson in college.So, the best weapon for me, today, personally... I feel it is my right to make that decision for myself. I can accept restrictions on the weapons that we should allow people to have. The question is where that lies.Part of the problem of talking about the Federal level, is that in some of the States many of the people actually do need significant firepower to survive as they do. And in others having a lot less is a significant benefit.For me the best weapon is a handgun. I'd probably oppose any gun control law that limits my ability to legally own one. Of course, but wife + kid = 0, so they're out of the equation. So what are the odds? Am I supposedly 1000 times more likely to kill one of these hypothetical people than defend myself with a gun? Do I have to actually kill the guy to be counted in the stat?Regardless, if we're talking 0.001% chance vs.0.000001% chance, then I'm not worried about it. Especially considering I took too huge chunks out of the equation. I'm more concerned with whether or not I fit the statistical profile than I am with measuring the validity of it. No, I don't think so. If the crime was deterred then there was no reason to shoot. I'm talking about crimes that didn't happen. Only? How could you possibly know that? Ewe, that's a tough one. The average citizens formed their own gang and pushed the other one back over to the other side of the river where they came from. Really? You think that? I'd bet that a lot more of the deaths by gun fire are due to men purposefully shooting other men in the city, not accidental or random ones. See, that's just not a decision that I'm willing to let you make for me. And the additional 0.4% of deaths every year isn't enough to let you.And really, how do you suppose that would happen? Let's say that you do pass a bunch of Federal gun control laws, and then I comply with them and disarm myself like the law-abiding citizen that I am.Now the only people who have guns are the ones that are already willing to break the law. Gee, thanks a lot.And how would you feel if the number of gun homicides went up? Even with a drastic drop in gun suicides? And if the total amount of suicides barely dropped? How are you measuring it? Defensive gun use happens all the time, what are you talking about? Really? So amazing that the news stations blast it about? When was the last time it happened; the thing you are talking about? How amazing was it? So is anyone being shot by a gun at all, family and friends, depending on the distance of "my woods". I don't want to own a weapon just because I intend to have to use it, which I hope never happens, but I do want the ability to decide for myself whether or not I should have a good one.

I'm too busy to reply to the other message, but here's some links to news of defensive gun use from the past week, not that its all inclusive. I stopped at a dozen:http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article30744024.html Homeowner Shoots Intruder In Lake Highlands - CBS DFWhttp://fox2now.com/...re-away-teen-carjackers-protect-victimhttp://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/321023621.htmlhttp://www.newsnet5.com/...micide-on-hilbish-avenue-in-akronHomeowner shoots and kills burglar suspectMan shot in neck in apparent break-inhttp://www.jcfloridan.com/...c6a-11e5-a556-8b15e1d936ca.htmlhttp://www.wsbtv.com/...r-shoots-man-breaking-his-home/nnFBGhttp://www.fox5vegas.com/...during-east-vegas-holdup-attemptCops: Neighbor in fear for life shot teen he saw burglarizing home — Orlando Sentinelhttp://www.actionnewsjax.com/...home-invasion-westside/nnB5K