Summations Only

quote:

---

That blow was the last of the battle. Once out upon the road, Black Dog, in spite of his wound, showed a wonderful clean pair of heels and disappeared over the edge of the hill in half a minute.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island

---

Instead of just running away, why not address the whole post?

Too old goes into physical limitation. If you're too old to learn self-defense techniques, you're too old to manipulate a gun. Trust me, I've taught self-defense to women of almost all ages and they were all able to handle me at 6'1 215lbs no problem.You don't have time to learn self-defense? Then you don't have time to train yourself with your gun, I don't want to see you anywhere close to one. That's dangerous thinking there.Lack the desire? Just as I thought that your desire was to be able to defend yourself... By the way, you don't always have your gun but you always have your hands.I also notice that you conveniently avoided the remark about non-lethal weapons. Squirrels and rabbits? Engineers never found a way to prevent that in the last hundreds years... right. And are you really saying that unwanted deaths or injuries don't happen with guns? They happen all the time even when fired by trained people like policemen! Your words : Dissuade the intruders by having grenades and atomic weapons. You really want to go there? RPGs, grenade, flamethrower. All personal weapons, all better than guns in many situations. Ask yourself why it's a better self defense weapon. Isn't it because evil strangers have guns too? Why do they have guns? Probably because you have one!Place yourself in the role of a robber. You enter a house with you gun in hand, just in case. You happen to come face to face with a guy living there. He has a gun, would you shoot? And if he hadn't one? Would you shoot too? The probability of deaths occuring is greater when guns are present on the scene!

Oh, get over yourself. Just because I don't find what you post to be worth responding to doesn't mean I'm running away from it.

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.

Nah, you could fire a gun from a wheelchair. That's not true either. For one, you could be spending your free time training yourself with your gun and then not have time for self defense classes.Too, the gun training class that I took was 16 hours, which I presume doesn't get you very far into a martial art. Well, since I have a gun then I don't have any desire to learn a martial art.And I have already considered and rejected your suggestion for non-lethal weapons, which didn't move the discussion past: "Regardless, its my decision to make in how I want to enable my own self-defense..." I don't think so. Nope. Fuck that, armed robbery carries a worse penalty than burglary.

Did we already address the possibility of liability insurance for gun owners?

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

And the mental health condition has enough holes to drive a truck through. It is as if people think there are people who have a mental health condition that we can tell would make violent. Most mentally ill people are not determined to be a threat until they act violently.

I think its clear and straightforward that the Constitution was not written to grant rights to people, but rather it lists rights that people have that the government cannot violate. The 9th amendment explicitly states that the rights in the Constitution is an enumeration, and that there are other rights that people have that are not listed there:

If you're in that wheelchair because you're too old and unable to walk, I'm not sure I can trust you with a gun. Just so you know, self defense classes are available in your free time, what a bad excuse seriously!And 16 hours is more than enough to be quite effective with your bare hands. After those 16 hours, use your "free time" to practice... Remember, we weren't only talking about you unless you're too old, in a wheelchair and have a handicap. You rejected it without a shred of an explanation, thanks. Enlightening! You should write books. Another great rebutal, you really went into the important parts of my argument.Why are you evading question Cat Sci?Let me dismiss all your arguments in your fashion : Admit it, you only like guns, that's all. And you know what? You have the natural right to like them.

You may think this, but a lot of gun owners do not agree. To make this happen there would have to be stricter Federal legislation. Not true in some states. In Texas there are no restrictions on minors having guns. In most states, minors are only restricted on handgun possession. To make this happen there would have to be stricter Federal legislation. In the US there is no standard as to when guns can be used to shoot people. In FL feeling threatened seems to be the standard. In some states you can legally shoot people if they mistakenly enter your property or house. To make this happen there would have to be stricter Federal legislation. If you feel you cannot defend your claims by all means move along.Very few people and no reasonable people are calling for banning guns. That is a strawman. Stricter gun laws are what people are calling for. Current laws are not adequate.

So? Why should I care about your approval? What you write to me will either elicit a response, or it will not.

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

Again the same pattern, what are you afraid of this time? You're afraid of evil strangers with guns so you want a gun. You're afraid of loosing some freedoms with a more responsable guns regulation. Now you're afraid that thinking might change your views?USA : Land of the fear free!

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.