Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 166 of 305 (399782)
05-08-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
05-07-2007 6:13 PM


Special pleadingt
You once again must point out where I said this was okay. I think I asked you to do it earlier, but you still haven't.
I never stated you said it, so why would you ask me to point out where you said it was OK? You never said it was OK. I asked you if you thouht it was OK and you have not answered. I asked this because you implied that between the two of us, I was the only person who wanted restrictions on weapon ownage. Either you are for restrictions, or you are not. Which is it?
Why is what you're arguing a fallacy? Well, I say that it should be okay to own weaponry, firearms. You then try to apply that general principle to a very specific--and insane--case, when you say that based on my logic everyone should own nukes.
Finally! Of course it is insane. My point, for the nth time, is that guns are a very specific case. What is special about guns that you special plead for them, why is rule 'guns don't kill people' not equally applicable to every single weapon in the world?
But what if you were face to face with the SS, wanting to take you off to a death camp? In that specific case, would killing that person still be wrong?
No - I have never stated that killing someone is always wrong. What if your country was attacked by aliens and you were the only survivor and the only way to defend yourself was with a nuclear weapon, are you saying that owning a nuclear weapon would be insane then?
Specific cases require specific sets of moral judgements that are different from those used to judge general cases.
That is not a reason to special plead. You made a general defense - inanimate objects don't kill people. But you only wanted it to apply to guns and objects less powerful. That is special pleading, not a specific set of moral judgements. Why does your 'x don't kill people' rule only apply to weapons up to whatever firearm you have decided is the most powerful accepted weapon? I am asking for you to explain your judgements, not mindlessly repeat slogans.
So, to repeat my question: Where did I ever say it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons? Until you answer that question, or retract your fallacy, I'm afraid this debate can go no further.
To repeat. You have never said it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons don't kill people. I have never said you said it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons. I have answered your question.
It is not a fallacy to point out when others are special pleading.
You put forward a general rule: Inanimate objects (eg lakes and guns) don't kill people, people do. You are now adding to that general rule, 'unless that inanimate object is too x'. What is x, I ask? Why are guns not too x, but rpgs/nukes (wherever you draw the line) are?
When you exempt something from a certain rule, without justifying that exemption it is called special pleading. Hopefully you either already know this, or have looked it up by now. To help you out - you are exempting certain weapons from your rule. Now you need to justify it. All I am trying to do is hear what your justification is. That is all. I'm not arguing a point, I'm just asking you a question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 05-07-2007 6:13 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2007 2:29 AM Modulous has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 167 of 305 (399784)
05-08-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Modulous
05-08-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Special pleadingt
But Nukes need to be allowed!
Isn't the right to bear arms there so militias may protect democracy from a government gone bad? How would a militia fight the US government without nukes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 2:14 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 10:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 168 of 305 (399792)
05-08-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
05-07-2007 6:13 PM


Mod wins the debate!
I can't believe I missed this the first time through.
what if you were face to face with the SS, wanting to take you off to a death camp?
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and proclaim Modulous the winner of the debate!
Congrats Mod!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 05-07-2007 6:13 PM Jon has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 305 (399824)
05-08-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Modulous
05-08-2007 1:52 AM


So you don't think that if there was free and easy access to C4, more innocent people would be killed? What about a nuke in every home and sarin gas on every desk?
Well, you have wander far afield from the subject, and I allowed some latitude, but now you are in the realm of the absurd.
Explosives can have many uses, and most do not involve killing people. Also, C-4 is already controlled as is Sarin gas. So far I do not think I have advocated ready access to either C-4 or Sarin gas.
The title of the thread is "for the record (re: guns thread)" which seems to imply that we are talking about, guess what? Guns.
Do I have a problem with people having high explosives? No, not really. And C-4 is actually one of the safer explosives, like dynamite, and I would certainly prefer that someone have either of them over less stable explosives such as nitroglycerin.
Do I have a problem with folk having Sarin? That is a little tougher. I can think of no legitimate reason right off hand for having Sarin gas, so I would have to say that until such valid reason is presented, I would say no.
As to a nuke in every home, again, unless some valid argument is presented, I would likely say no.
You need to also remember that in the US, things like explosives, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons are already proscribed under separate laws than are involved in gun control. They are simply separate issues.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 1:52 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 10:19 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 170 of 305 (399826)
05-08-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by NosyNed
05-08-2007 2:29 AM


Re: Special pleadingt
But Nukes need to be allowed!
Isn't the right to bear arms there so militias may protect democracy from a government gone bad? How would a militia fight the US government without nukes?
While there is some validity to the idea of a people rising up to overthrow the government if necessary, the need for nuclear weapons is not that critical. One of the things about nukes is that they really and truly are things that most likely would not be used in such an attempt. The reason is that their use would destroy what was sought.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2007 2:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 171 of 305 (399828)
05-08-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
05-08-2007 9:50 AM


Explosives can have many uses, and most do not involve killing people.
Correct.
Also, C-4 is already controlled as is Sarin gas. So far I do not think I have advocated ready access to either C-4 or Sarin gas.
Correct. The point that is trying to be gotten across is that everybody agrees that certain weapons are too much. What is the justification for where you draw the lines?
The title of the thread is "for the record (re: guns thread)" which seems to imply that we are talking about, guess what? Guns.
Correct. I'm talking about guns. I'm also talking about other things - trying to devise a universally applicable rule that can be consistently applied to decide if any given weapon is overkill.
You need to also remember that in the US, things like explosives, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons are already proscribed under separate laws than are involved in gun control. They are simply separate issues.
Of course they. The thing is: they are all still 'arms'.
Remember what is being discussed here: Jon said that I was 'for restrictions' on weapon ownership. I asked him if he was not also for restrictions, and highlighted some extreme examples I was confident that he would be pro-restrictions on. That is all. I am not saying that guns and explosives and chemical weapons are not treated differently. What I was simply doing was showing that the slogan 'Guns don't kill people' can be shown to be absurd since it is essentially saying that objects that can cause harm should not be restricted because it requires human intervention.
Naturally, guns have different uses from explosives, nuclear weapons and knives. All of which have their own use. I would be insane to imply otherwise. It is Jon that is making an absurd argument - that we shouldn't restrict access to an object because the object itself can do no harm without human intervention. It is absurd for the very reason that it equally (if not moreso) applies to nuclear weapons (most people can't arm a nuke, but most people can arm a gun, so a nuke is SAFER!). Since everybody agrees that nuclear proliferation is bad it gives us common ground to build some general rules as to what arms are OK for everyone to have access to.
This is not a question of law, jar. The law on gun ownership in the US can easily be looked up, as it is for most countries. The issue at hand originally was 'should the law be changed, and if so in which direction should we change it (more or less restricted?). Now the issue is simply trying to get Jon to understand the issue (see the OP), not trying to convert him to hate guns, and trying to at least get him to stop misunderstanding people's position on the gun debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 9:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 10:22 AM Modulous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 305 (399830)
05-08-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Modulous
05-08-2007 10:19 AM


I am not Jon.
I am not Jon.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 10:19 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 10:53 AM jar has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 173 of 305 (399832)
05-08-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by jar
05-08-2007 10:22 AM


No - I'm Spartacus
Jon: "You are for restrictions"
Me: "So are you, for example - nuclear weapons and explosives"
jar: "I have no problems with people owning [list of weapons]."
Me: "So you don't think proliferation of explosives or nuclear weapons might result in more innocents getting hurt?"
jar: "This thread is about guns, not other kinds of weapons"
Me: "Actually, this thread is about Jon misunderstanding the opposite side to the weapons debate and this subthread is me attempting to show Jon the absurd consequences of the logic that 'guns don't kill people...people do'. Many objects can only kill people with deliberate or accidental human intervention, nuclear weapons included.
jar: "I'm not Jon".
Thanks for the productive and relevant debate there jar. Feel free to jump into the middle of a subthread at anytime and then later declare that you are not the original participant in the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 10:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 11:14 AM Modulous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 174 of 305 (399833)
05-08-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Modulous
05-08-2007 10:53 AM


Re: No - I'm Spartacus
You're welcome.
The facts though are that owning and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected Right in the US.
That is a very important point. It is a Right, not a privilege.
What constitutes "arms" is a matter of law though and it has been debated and right now the laws as they stand are illogical and confusing but tend to place all handguns and all rifles in the category of arms.
Fully automatic weapons, while legal to own, require a separate license than semi-automatic ones. Laws on how and where guns can be carried vary from State to State and even City to City and place to place.
Eventually this will be settled as a matter of law. I personally hope that the current restrictions on carrying guns is relaxed and that carry is permitted almost everywhere.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 10:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 11:22 AM jar has replied
 Message 195 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 12:28 PM jar has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 175 of 305 (399835)
05-08-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by jar
05-08-2007 11:14 AM


Re: No - I'm Spartacus
The facts though are that owning and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected Right in the US.
A fact that nobody is disputing.
That is a very important point. It is a Right, not a privilege.
Not under dispute.
What constitutes "arms" is a matter of law though and it has been debated and right now the laws as they stand are illogical and confusing but tend to place all handguns and all rifles in the category of arms.
That is not under dispute.
Fully automatic weapons, while legal to own, require a separate license than semi-automatic ones. Laws on how and where guns can be carried vary from State to State and even City to City and place to place.
Not under debate.
Eventually this will be settled as a matter of law. I personally hope that the current restrictions on carrying guns is relaxed and that carry is permitted almost everywhere.
Fine.

Now - about that slogan 'Guns don't kill people, people do'...the topic of this subthread. Care to comment, or just state facts of law and your opinions on gun restrictions? Or forget that, how about the OP - that Jon (and some other 'pro-gunners') seem to be unable to read/process/remember/represent correctly some of the people on the other side (more restrictive) of the gun control debate?
Any comments at all to do with the topic? Or did you just want to make sure that I understand your position on the gun debate? To clarify I do understand your position on the gun debate, and any questions I had about your position were certainly cleared up in the first few pages of this thread.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 11:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 11:34 AM Modulous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 305 (399836)
05-08-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Modulous
05-08-2007 11:22 AM


Re: No - I'm Spartacus
I simply wish to express my position on the gun issue and will continue to do so.
Where possible I will continue to point out, to the best of my ability, what I consider to be the significant things to be considered.
If you will read what I have posted in this thread I believe you will also find out that I tried to also correct what I considered to be misstatements by Jon. One such example is Message 28.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 11:22 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 11:48 AM jar has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 177 of 305 (399841)
05-08-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
05-08-2007 11:34 AM


I simply wish to express my position on the gun issue and will continue to do so.
Not a problem. Can you do two things, out of courtesy, though?
1. Try and keep things on topic (as per the OP).
2. If you answer a question that is directed at someone else, make sure you are keeping in mind the context in which the question was being asked. Just blithely answering questions without heed to the context is confusing.
This thread is busy enough without confusing merry-go-rounds of pointlessness.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 11:34 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 4:33 PM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 305 (399878)
05-08-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Modulous
05-08-2007 11:48 AM


Modulous writes:
Now - about that slogan 'Guns don't kill people, people do'...the topic of this subthread. Care to comment, or just state facts of law and your opinions on gun restrictions? Or forget that, how about the OP - that Jon (and some other 'pro-gunners') seem to be unable to read/process/remember/represent correctly some of the people on the other side (more restrictive) of the gun control debate?
The real issue here, is that you continue to ask a rhetorical question”which began as a statement, mind you”that I actually went through the trouble of addressing. In Message 121 (which no one replied to, by the way), I said:
quote:
If you can show me that nukes have recreational use as much as guns do, and that they are good to protect individual A from the attacking individual B without also killing off innocent bystanders C,D,E, and the 10,000 F's, then you can continue to set the two equal.
This wasn't the answer you wanted, I know. I have intentionally refused to answer the question because we all know that it's just a silly attempt to side-track the argument. When, in Message 108, I asked for you to show me how going from an M-16 to an H-Bomb was a valid flow of logic, you failed to do so. You made the assertion (Message 159) that "...you cannot special plead for guns." In this, you've made the largest error in your logic. In the United States, the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment; however, there is more to the amendment than just that. The amendment reads (emphasis added), as stated by Nuggin in Message 1:
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.
I gave an example of how this works, why a militia is important, and what its function is, in Message 33 of the same thread (as a response to Message 10).
quote:
Nighttrain (as a definition for 'militia') writes:
"the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not"
...
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
If the Canadian army decided to attack the United States, and the citizens of Duluth, Minnesota grabbed up their guns, went out of their houses, and started shooting them down as the Canadians came on through... THAT is a militia.
A militia such as that is important in defending a country. Imagine how many Canadians those Duluthians can kill off before the government has time to react and send trained soldiers. The government at that timed realized that a militia:
1) could be gathered almost immediately. Remember, in the days that law was written, the only way to send messages was on horse, so that invaders would otherwise be able to destroy homes and kill citizens in the time it took the horse to run to wherever the trained soldiers were stationed, wait for the generals there to formulate a plan, send the trained soldiers along with all the supplies needed to sustain them away from the base, etc.
2) greatly increases the number of 'fighters' available to the country. Imagine how powerful the country's defence would be against the Canadians if all the able-bodied people grabbed their guns and started plucking off Canadians one-by-one... a lot more powerful than just the military on its own.
3) allows people the basic and fundamental 'God-given', as it were, right to defend their own land against invading Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, etc. At this time in the country's history, I do not think many people held the military in very high regard, and I would imagine those hesitant about the revolution were probably concerned with whether or not the military could effectively protect all its citizenry, especially those living far from the main government centres.
...
This sets us up with the prerequisites about what type of weapons the 2nd Amendment protects. Namely, to be covered under the 2nd Amendment, a weapon must demonstrate that its ownership is "necessary to the security of a free state." In other words, allowing citizens to own only muskets and firecrackers would defeat completely the purpose of the militia. To be effective, the militia has to actually have a chance against possible invading forces. This means the Amendment is flexible. It can include artillery that has been newly invented and which is also required for "the security of a free state."
So, according to this Amendment people should be allowed to arm themselves with machine guns, because to arm themselves with anything less would simply make them unprepared, and leave them to be mowed down by the Canadians like so much swamp grass. Now, let's put nuclear weapons to the test. Do they pass? A better question would be: are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? The answer: no. As pointed out by jar in his response to NosyNed,
quote:
Jar in Message 170:
One of the things about nukes is that they really and truly are things that most likely would not be used in such an attempt. The reason is that their use would destroy what was sought.
Personal ownership of nuclear weapons would not be "necessary to the security of a free state." Hell, setting one off on the invading Canadian forces would be downright detrimental to "the security of a free state." As a result, nuclear weapons are not covered by the 2nd Amendment, and so they are completely irrelevant to the issue of things that are covered by the 2nd Amendment”guns. In other words, guns are a special case; they are a case of something which is protected by an Amendment to the Constitution. As has been pointed out before, cars, computers, houses, etc. are not rights. Only arms”and a couple other things”are rights, and so things protected under those rights are special cases.
Lest you forget, the entire topic of the gun debate started when Nuggin made his post asking us where the line should be drawn regarding the 2nd Amendment (Message 1).
Now, you might say that this is not the Guns topic, but then we'd have to ask, what topic is this? If we go by what Nuggin has said in Message 115, then "the point of the thread is that [I] was being incredibly stupid in the other thread." From this, there are two courses of action. We can either continue this thread as a leave-off from the original Guns thread, and actually try to pull it back onto the topic proposed there; or we can get this thread back on to its own topic, which would just amount to everyone calling me stupid and then one of the Admins would have to get off the couch and trudge down to the damp, dark, cold basement to pull the ol' "Close Topic" lever. Which will it be?
As a reminder, Nuggin's original post was”if I'm interpreting it correctly”asking us when a weapon is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state," but is instead detrimental to that security. So, we either pick up that topic and stick with it, or there is really no reason for this thread to be open, and for us all to be here.
Jon

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 11:48 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2007 5:14 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 5:49 PM Jon has replied
 Message 197 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 1:09 PM Jon has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 179 of 305 (399886)
05-08-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
05-08-2007 4:33 PM


As has been pointed out before, cars, computers, houses, etc. are not rights
actually, in a way, they are rights. As far as I'm aware, the US protects the right to own property (even if it's not directly stated in the constitution).
You have the right to own property. Cars, houses, computers, etc are property.
I asked for you to show me how going from an M-16 to an H-Bomb was a valid flow of logic
Crash actually answered that. It's call reducto ad absurdum. Which is not a fallacy. Special pleading though, is.
And I love how you practically imported your PNT into this post.
and as a history aside:
I would imagine those hesitant about the revolution were probably concerned with whether or not the military could effectively protect all its citizenry, especially those living far from the main government centres.
A lot of those hesitant about the revolution were actually either neutral or pro-British.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 4:33 PM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 180 of 305 (399888)
05-08-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
05-08-2007 4:33 PM


The real issue here, is that you continue to ask a rhetorical question”which began as a statement, mind you”that I actually went through the trouble of addressing. In Message 121 (which no one replied to, by the way), I said:
Erm. What rhetorical question?
This sets us up with the prerequisites about what type of weapons the 2nd Amendment protects.
I am not talking about what weapons the 2nd ammendment is meant to protect, does protect or should protect. I am asking you to justify the statement 'guns don't kill people. People do', in such a way that we can't replace guns with an absurdly more powerful weapon. If you want to drop the slogan that's fine with me.
I know. I have intentionally refused to answer the question because we all know that it's just a silly attempt to side-track the argument.
Is the statement: "Guns don't kill people, people do" a true statement?
If it is, then the statement:
"nukes don't kill people, people do" is also true.
And what information have we gained? Nothing! Neither statement serves as justification for proliferation of said weapon.
I asked for you to show me how going from an M-16 to an H-Bomb was a valid flow of logic, you failed to do so.
They are both objects that require human intervention before people get killed by them. Thus neither object kill people on its own. People are required to use the weapons to kill people. That is the logical basis of your slogan isn't it?
You made the assertion (Message 159) that "...you cannot special plead for guns."
Correct. OF course you can special plead for anything you like. What I was implying is that special pleading is erroneous reasoning.
In this, you've made the largest error in your logic. In the United States, the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment; however, there is more to the amendment than just that.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. If you had simply said 'Guns are a special case because they are protected by the constitution' when I asked you, we could have avoided wasting all this time!
Now - nobody is stating that the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect the ownership of certain guns. What is under question is - how protected should guns be? How much restriction should be in place? Should the second ammendment even exist?
You know, the gun debate. Not the made up debate where some people think the debate is about what the law currently is.
So, according to this Amendment people should be allowed to arm themselves with machine guns, because to arm themselves with anything less would simply make them unprepared, and leave them to be mowed down by the Canadians like so much swamp grass.
OK. So...now we have arrived at understanding the second ammendment you should be partway to understanding the debate. The debate is not 'what is the 2nd ammendment about'. That's an interesting debate, but that isn't the debate we're having right now.
We're debating what is the most powerful weapon we should allow the citizenry to possess. Not what is the most powerful weapon a citizen is allowed to posess. That is a matter of law and can be looked up without too much problem.
nuclear weapons are not covered by the 2nd Amendment
And nobody is saying they are. Indeed - nuclear weapons are being used as an extreme example that everybody can agree is neither covered under the 2nd ammendment nor are a good candidate for personal posession.
Now. None of this has ANYTHING to do with the fallacious slogan 'Guns don't kill people. People do.' Do you agree that the slogan is erroneous, can be adapted to levels of absurdity and has no place in a gun debate?
Genuine discussions on personal possession for the protection of a free state and well regulate militia and other merits or otherwise of gun ownership make for a much more intelligent and intellectually stimulating debate than pathetically banal slogans like you were putting forward in Message 106 as well as your arguments centred principally around that general message that preceded that.
As has been pointed out before, cars, computers, houses, etc. are not rights. Only arms”and a couple other things”are rights, and so things protected under those rights are special cases.
Indeed - and again let me congratulating you on actually responding to the points raised. Yes they are rights. The question is - should they be? The next question is 'what restrictions are we putting on gun ownership?'.
Now, you might say that this is not the Guns topic, but then we'd have to ask, what topic is this?
Assuming you understand that your opponents are not denying the existence of the 2nd ammendment. That we are not blaming guns themselves. That we are not calling for all guns to be outright banned, and nobody is arguing that violence would cease with the eradication of firearms....then I'm perfectly happy to leave the thread at that.
As a reminder, Nuggin's original post was”if I'm interpreting it correctly”asking us when a weapon is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state," but is instead detrimental to that security. So, we either pick up that topic and stick with it, or there is really no reason for this thread to be open, and for us all to be here.
Correct! The topic was not 'does the ammendment intend for guns to be necessary to the security of a free state', since we all know that is so, the only problems have been your distorted characterisations of your opponents.
Assuming you have now raised the bar of debate from the insane to the rational, this thread's purpose is complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 4:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 7:43 PM Modulous 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