|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The concept that your right to own a gun is god given is totally fatuous. The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct, it's man made. You currently have the right because your society has allowed it - no other reason. Amusingly enough, this seems to be an argument that Cat Sci might have made were the context not the second amendment.
Message 108 Taq writes: So you are indifferent to being murdered, stolen from, and imprisoned? Do you just pretend to care about these things? Cat Sci writes: Its not that I'm indifferent, I just don't see any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things done to me. The only way I can see them actually existing is when they become legal rights. Message 115 Cat Sci writes: The Law of the Jungle doesn't use those natural rights. Its only when we have societies that we can begin to pretend that there are natural rights. pretend there are natural rights? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2399 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined:
|
Am I the only one to see a connection here? As soon as you talk about limiting the right to own a gun, guns lovers get overly defensive (close to paranoia if you ask me), the same attitude that prompt them to be armed in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2399 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined:
|
Ted Cruz found a purpose for you : cooking bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you really think you addressed my questions? Most of your proposals are new stricter regulations. And again you are attempting to hijack the thread with your continuing rants about non-analogous car driving. Of course I not only think but did answer your questions. I have said I do not oppose regulations, only stupid regulations.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The concept that your right to own a gun is god given is totally fatuous. The 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct, it's man made. You currently have the right because your society has allowed it - no other reason. Uh, the concept of natural rights goes all the way back to the Age of Enlightenment. Their distinction from legal rights is nothing new. If you don't think that people have any natural rights, and that the only rights you have are legal ones, then that's fine. That's not how the U.S. sees it, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Since you seem unwilling to actually discuss your positions it is worthless trying to engage you.
You are sounding more and more like a creo. Still waiting for some explanation of all these gun laws you claim are ignored. But I am done here.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
That's not how the U.S. sees it, though.
Really?Can you show how natural rights are accounted for in U.S. law and jurisprudence? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Cat Sci writes: Uh, the concept of natural rights goes all the way back to the Age of Enlightenment. Their distinction from legal rights is nothing new. If you don't think that people have any natural rights, and that the only rights you have are legal ones, then that's fine. That's not how the U.S. sees it, though. Utter garbage. There is no natural right to own a gun.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If you don't think that people have any natural rights, and that the only rights you have are legal ones, then that's fine. That's not how the U.S. sees it, though. 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. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
jar writes: But I do feel the topic is worth discussing, and am trying to point out that the solutions suggested are at best sophomoric and in many cases just stupid. You can only be thinking of when you said, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
The issue is not guns but misuse of tools; No, this isn't some tools issue. Guns increase one's risk of injury and death. Their net benefit is negative.
it is the same issue are vehicular deaths and that is ignorance and disregard of existing laws. You're way out in left field somewhere. Of course less ignorance and greater adherence to existing laws would help, but that's true of almost anything. You can't change or in any way avoid one fundamental fact: Guns make almost no positive contributions. They make almost exclusively negative ones. This definitely isn't true of vehicles, nor of almost anything else in our daily lives for that matter. Maybe hard drugs are the closest thing to being as bad as guns. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
jar writes: If we banned vehicles it would reduce vehicular deaths. Well, as we all know, "Cars don't kill people. People kill people." Cars, trucks, etc., serve essential economic and social purposes. Guns have almost none. Their one supposed benefit, self defense, turns out to increase risk of injury and death. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
jar writes: Don't you mean that handguns do not serve a useful purpose that YOU see? But the benefit that *YOU* see for handguns is imagined. If there was really some "useful purpose" that you could surprise us all with you would have mentioned it. The reality is that there is no net benefit to widespread ownership of guns, only a net cost in terms of injuries and deaths. Year after year. Meaningful points this far into a debate can't be made with one and two sentence posts. If you really want to contribute to the debate then please proceed, by all means, but if not then please stop the silly and nearly meaningless sneering that doesn't contribute anything. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cat Sci writes: Uh, the concept of natural rights goes all the way back to the Age of Enlightenment.Their distinction from legal rights is nothing new. If you don't think that people have any natural rights, and that the only rights you have are legal ones, then that's fine. That's not how the U.S. sees it, though. Utter garbage. There is no natural right to own a gun. There's a natural right to self defense. And there's a natural right to arm yourself. Handguns just happen to be the best weapons we got these days. When it was spears then it was spears, and when its phasers then its phasers. The fact that you don't want people to have a right, and the fact that you can deny people a right, doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. That's because its an "ought" not an "is". I get that you want to deny me the right to own a gun, I can live with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. Weren't you the one who said that nobody likes a tattle tale? And how could you know that the other position isn't the one that I don't actually believe in? Or that I didn't change my mind? Argue the position, not the person. A previous position is irrelevant to the point of this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And how could you know that the other position isn't the one that I don't actually believe in? Or that I didn't change my mind? Argue the position, not the person.
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.
A previous position is irrelevant to the point of this one. You are welcome to hold that opinion of convenience. Edited by NoNukes, : add an edge Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024