Summations Only

I find the insurance issues to be more interesting, but as you say they are not the topic.With regard to standing your ground, let's recall that such laws are not the only way that a district attorney might decide that a shooting is justified. It is also possible to use pure self defense rules. I would think that the Oklahoma decision not to prosecute would be unsurprising in many jurisdictions.There was an earlier case in Oklahoma involving a drug store robbery. The druggist on duty shot one (unarmed) robber in the head, chased another robber down the street firing at him.The druggist returned to the store, saw that the first perp was still breathing. So he got a second gun out of a drawer and plugged the perp five more times killing him. The killing was caught on security video and the druggist was eventually convicted of first degree murder. But some of the legislators who had enacted the stand your ground law insisted that the law was intended to protect the druggist. Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland found guilty of murder in killing of suspect - CBS NewsThis is a reasonably fair summary from a person supportive of the shooter.American Handgunner Page not found - American Handgunner

A melee/shootout in a darkened movie theater is a horrifying thought to most people. Apparently not to presidential candidate Perry. On the other hand, the suggestion of armed citizens packing in a mall is standard gun nut fantasy. The idea is only scary to those already persuaded that there are too many guns.

And of course driving is a highly regulated activity. About the only thing this car vs gun argument works against is a complete ban of all gunsEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

sorry. hit keys while dozingEdited by NoNukes, : remove garbage.

Amusingly enough, this seems to be an argument that Cat Sci might have made were the context not the second amendment. Message 108Message 115pretend there are natural rights?

Your argument is a sham. What you describe isn't even how you see it.The Declaration of the United States describes a few rights as being inalienable, Creator endowed rights, but you yourself have indicated that you don't believe in such rights. You are making an argument that even you don't actually believe. Did the law of the jungle prevent another man from taking your spear or is the 2nd amendment a product of the US legal system exactly as are laws protecting your life? Uour previous position is that a "no" answer to that question means that the right to bear arms is not natural.There is little to no evidence that the second amendment is a natural right even if there are other natural rights. The second amendment carves that right out of federal powers but at the time of enactment left the ability to the states to ignore the second amendment. It is only the incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the fourteenth amendment that prevents states from passing laws like the ones invalidated in DC v Heller, and those previously enforced in Illinois. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you review the post I provided both an argument against your positions as well as pointing to your own previous position. But at least one of your positions is total crap. Turns out that it is the current position. You are welcome to hold that opinion of convenience. Edited by NoNukes, : add an edge

We've seen this argument before, and it is an argument that is pretty easy to address. Here is the text of the 19th amendment.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now you might make the argument that women always had some natural the right to vote and that we just decided to protect it when we passed the 19th amendment. But that would be a pretty bizarre claim. It is pretty clear that female suffrage rights were created with the nineteenth using wording pretty similar to that given in the second amendment.So clearly the text you refer to cannot decide the issue. We could make a similar argument using the 15th amendment. And clearly there is no way to argue that the 15th amendment did not establish a right for freed slaves to vote.A further argument is that even after the 2nd amendment, states still had the right to restrict firearms until after the 14th amendment.Finally, isn't the distinction between legal and natural rights a bit off the mark? The fact that a right is natural does not mean that the scope of protection is universal and it does not mean that it cannot be abridged by legislation or amendment to the constitution. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And why does natural vs legal make any difference in answering that question?It is the character of the right and not its source and the character of the imposition on that right that make a difference. Natural vs legal is philosophical wanking. As you've indicated there is nothing particular special about people who do not subscribe to the theory of natural rights.

Fine. My point is that such appearances can easily be shown to be meaningless and without any weight. You made a number of arguments based on this appearance. My point is that those arguments actually turn out to be without any basis. Sure. That's exactly what Percy has said during his posts to this thread as moderator.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Apparently my sarcasm did not come across. Admin has actually had very little to say so far. But if you find the thread useless, perhaps you can pep things up a bit with some insightful commentary.

And perhaps what you are reading is a bunch of legalese that you are not correctly interpreting.The drafters cannot make a right a natural right by the saying so. Voting is clearly a legal right that exists only in a framework that includes voting. Yet the same identical language is used.You need to consider the possibility that your interpretation is incorrect. But instead you continue to insist that you are right without addressing arguments that others have made to the contrary.It is fairly clear from reading even a small amount of Supreme Court jurisprudence that simply reading a string of words from a constitutional provision is not enough to determine its meaning or its history. In this case we can examine other language and determine that it is also used with strictly legal rights. You are going to need to point to some other evidence. Can you do that? Other people who are making the opposite argument can point to other evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What physical condition prevents a person from legally owning a gun?

In fact, some current laws, like the extreme versions of 'Stand your ground' are actually counter productive.

What you say is true about the body of the constitution, but it is clear that the general rule does not apply to the amendments because it is easy to point to amendments that do add and subtract legal rights for people. We've already discussed the 15th and 19th amendments, but the 13th, 14th amendments are even better examples. It is also clear that the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments also grant rights by and not just by limiting government. Is there a natural right to a jury trial?Further, some of the powers in the constitution directly enable the Federal government to affect the people. It would be impossible to claim that such provisions do not place limitations on the right of the people. Do you think you have the right not to pay income tax? Do you have the right to directly elect a member to the senate.The best description of the body of the constitution is that it enumerates the powers of federal government. But to claim that even the bill of rights grants no rights is pretty silly and easily disproven by just reading. What we can say is that we might have additional rights that are not enumerated, but those rights cannot be carved out of the enumerated powers of government. But even some of those might be carved out of the gaps of the enumerated federal powers.The power to blow away your neighbor in a fight may be a natural right. I personally do subscribe to the theory of natural rights. But I don't see that you can use this line of argument to demonstrate that either the separation of church and state, or bearing arms are natural rights. Yes, so what? It is trivial to show that some of the rights enumerated did not exist before they appeared as amendments. The question is whether any or all of the rights enumerated, which simply means that the rights are listed, are natural rather than legal.Let's recall that the intent was that the people and the states had all powers and rights not listed in the constitution. That means that in enumerating specific powers, rights were carved out. Some people believed that listing rights in the bill of rights would limit rights. The ninth amendment was an attempt to prevent such a thing. With that understanding we can say that by enumerating federal powers, some rights were legally created.And thanks for providing an example of how we provide arguments once our initial positions have been challenged. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.