Summations Only

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?

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.

Ted Cruz found a purpose for you : cooking bacon

Of course I not only think but did answer your questions.I have said I do not oppose regulations, only stupid regulations.

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.

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.

Really?
Can you show how natural rights are accounted for in U.S. law and jurisprudence?

Utter garbage. There is no natural right to own a gun.

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.

You can only be thinking of when you said, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." No, this isn't some tools issue. Guns increase one's risk of injury and death. Their net benefit is negative. 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

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

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

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.

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.

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