Summations Only

I drive through East St. Louis twice a day to and from work...Their murder rate is on the order of one per one thousand, rather than per 100,000.
Burglary is on the order of one per one hundred...
Assault: one per twenty... for real eek on that one.

Why should the goal be to reduce gun death, specifically, as opposed to reducing all homicides?Or how about reducing violent crime in general? How much violent crime are you willing to increase to save one life from a gunshot?

And since those 2 were non-incidents, they will not get counted in the statistics that are being used to say that you having the gun increased your danger.We simply do not know how many people are deterred from crime because the People are armed. We don't know how many lives have been saved. Its dubious to say that firearms make the odds worse.

And the First Amendment says nothing about the internet, only "speech"... but your right is still protected on the internet.They extend to the normal usages at the time. Even given that, when they were written, 'arms' already implied 'firearms' while speech could have not ever been intended to be referring to the internet specifically. So the implications of the rights certainly are expanded as technologies increase.Still though, you're on the wrong side to begin with. You not supposed to have these rights just because you are being allowed to have them, and they're all limited until we determine which one are allowable. That's exactly the opposite, you have all the rights by default until it is determined that they need to be limited in some way. You need to provide a compelling argument to limit them, not just assume they're limited by the wording in the document. It doesn't even create a right to possess arms! It assumes the right already exists and then demands that this pre-existing right does not become infringed.Please, just understand this one thing: The Bill of Rights doesn't not create your rights. You have rights, period. The Bill exposes them and grants that they not be removed. No, the Supreme Court would rightly rule a gun ban as unconstitutional. Hell, even just the ban on carrying guns here in Iliinois was ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not sure that I am personally a proponent. It seems like a great idea but its hard to ground it objectively. But, the authors of the BoR were, and the influencial English Bill of Rights was written specifically to contrast the natural rights of the people as opposed to the Divine Rights of the king. So in that sense I'm a proponant.I'm certainly against the notion that we should all ponder what rights that we should allow people to have rather than defaulting on them having the right until we find sufficient reason to restrict it. No rights are unfettered, not even speech. Or as the supreme court phrased it: "no rights are absolute and unlimited" I think the natural right to self defense is the biggest influence on the 2nd. That what the English Bill of Right version stemmed from. The natural right to self-defense goes back to Aristotle. I don't think the 2nd is even talking about the right to to posses 5 inch artillery. Its understood to mean the arms that an individual can utilize. Artillery requires a crew, its a military thing. It has nothing to do with self-defense.

Well la-di-da. So much for thinking for yourself... Okay, well then you'd accept that I should be able to have any kind of weapon I want until someone in power tells me I can't. No, that's wrong. Show me where it does that.But regardless, what you originally posted remains in error:

quote:

---

we could totally ban guns and still not violate the amendment.

---

A gun ban would violate the amendment. You've failed to show otherwise.Your naive idea that its ambiguity limits its scope is refuted by current applications of the amendments. How quickly you run and hide!Anyways, Natural Rights are more of an ought-thing than an is-thing. People ought to be treated a certain way, but they're not objectively guaranteed any particular treatment. Through our empathy we can determine which things should and shouldn't do to each other. If you cannot understand that, then I'll leave you to wallow in your sociopathy.

The fact that there's nothing at all stopping you from arming yourself. You can pick up a big stick off the ground and you are armed with a club. You don't have to have any words written down on paper to be able to pick up a big stick. You don't need to have your rights granted to you.

In the same way that you have the right to free speech on the internet, or on the radio, or television, even though they're not mentioned in there either.But even worse for this line of argument, as I've already explained, we know that they were talking about 'firearms' when they just wrote 'arms'. The ambiguity is there on purpose so that the applications can be extended into the future.Do you understand at all how constitutional law works in this country? Only through ignorant naivity can these kinds of arguments come about. Do you also believe that the first amendment allows you to scream in a cops face that you're going to kill him?No rights are absolute and unlimited. And those rights are limited in favor of The Peoples' Rights. Its incumbant upon those wanting to limit the rights to show they're deterimental. In no case does the right have to be shown to exist first. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but its worthless in a practical sense. Wow, that moral nihilism didn't last very long.

Sort of, but not really. Its not that being able to do something demonstrates your right to do it. Its that if you are not being prevented from doing something, then you already have the right to do it by default. You don't need someone telling you that you are allowed to do it before you can."Am I allowed to go over there? I dunno, I don't see a sign saying that I can.""As long as there isn't a sign saying that you can't go over there, then you can."Does that make sense?We don't have the right to arms because its written down in the constitution. We already had it, there was nothing preventing it.And even the wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right, it assumes the right and says not to infringe it.

I'm not seeing it. In order to exemplify it, all you do is go on to trivialize the right by making it about something mundane like driving on the road.However, if there was a cop on the street stopping you from using the road to go the store and get breakfast, or whatever, I think you'd quickly change your mind about how trivial that right of yours is (obviousloy depending on why you were being stopped). I don't think bearing arms is a trivial matter at all. The right to self-defense is one of the most important rights you can have. Ya know, its even #2. That's pretty high on the list.And the 2nd simply does not create the right. Read it again. Quote it. Show me where the right is created. How and why? I mean, if you were prevented from doing your day to day activities, wouldn't you be pissed off? Wouldn't you feel slighted? No, that's the exact opposite of the way it works. If the second amendment simply did not exist, then everyone would still be able to have arms until some law was passed that disallowed it. You get to have arms by default, that's why its a right. The second amendment prevents those laws that would disallow people from having arms. That's not creating the right, that preventing the existing right from being removed. I'll have you know, I do think it is something to limit and debate.

What the fuck? That's a lie. Don't lie about me.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

But that doesn't mean anything at the individual level, so... so what?

Yeah, that makes sense. But I still don't see any creation of the right. I dunno. Isn't voting a legal right? Were 18 y/os being prevented from voting before the 26th? OTOH, were people being prevented from bearing arms before the 2nd? As you exemplified, you could say that 18 year olds did have the right already and that it was just being infringed, but I'm not sure that voting is a natural right to begin with. Considering that its part of a legal system, it seems like it would have to be a legal right. Was there any influence on the wording of the 26th by the 2nd?But you have a valid point that the wording alone doesn't determine whether the right was being created or not.

Just because I don't reply to your inane posts doesn't mean I'm bailing on the argument. Also, I have a real life outside of EvC and cannot reply to everything. Stop posting dickish replies about the persons and start making actuall arguments about the topic. Or just don't post at all.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

That's not true at all. No rights are absolute and unlimited.Laws the regulate guns are only unconstitutional when they infringe on your ability to have guns in general. Making Gun A illegal, while still allowing other guns, is not unconstitutional because you can still arm yourself with other guns, just not Gun A in particular.