|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What the Second Amendment actually means is irrelevant. Even if the Second Amendment inarguably guaranteed and protected everyone's right to own and bear arms whenever and wherever they pleased, guns still present a greater net danger to their owners and their friends and family than to any criminal. Most gun deaths are needless where no one would have died had there been no guns.
The Second Amendment is not a license to dismiss gun deaths by blaming them on human failings that will never, ever, go away, like ignorance, passion, carelessness, drunkenness, lack of training, etc. These failings are present in all aspects of human life, and so we design our laws and our tools to take them into account. Arguing that guns are some kind of exception to this custom and so the killing must go on unimpeded is unpardonable. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Wait... are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is a right endowed upon us by our creator? Or are you merely suggesting that the founding fathers saw it that way? Rights that pre-existed the constitution could simply be rights that another government or society had conferred the people. Those rights don't necessarily come from God or as a result of natural rights. HBD My very first suggestion was that the pre-existence of the right that is so clear in the wording might refer simply to the fact that they were free to possess arms in the colonies without restriction. Then I considered the idea of natural rights which is so clear in the Declaration of Independence, but whether the right to be armed was thought of in those terms I don't know. I could also go back to my first post on this thread where I quoted from a discussion of the earlier history of the right which emphasized the threat of tyrannical kings / government. My main interest was in the phrasing of the amendment which so clearely identifies it as a pre-existing right whatever the source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2369 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
Not according to the grammar of the wording I quoted, which clearly evokes a right already in existence before the writing of the Constitution. As a woman I'm sure you're familiar with this :
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The 19th amendment, granting voting right to women. So let me ask you Faith, according to your grammar, does it clearly evokes a right already in existence before the writing of the Constitution? Edited by Bliyaal, : Fixed a typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
So let me ask you Faith, according to your grammar, does it clearly evokes a right already in existence before the wrinting of the Constitution?
Or prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment? This is the question I have been trying to get Jon, Cat Sci and Faith to answer. Are all the rights preexisting just because of the particular grammar used? If not, how do we tell which were?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2369 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
You're absolutely right, I was just using her words to make it obvious that it didn't make sense. I don't understand why they're making a great deal about the way it's written when the meaning behind is clear. I guess that's their last resort since they won't answer anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Funny how it has to be written on a piece of paper to be a natural right; God given or otherwise. It seems that a natural right is anything that we decide it shall be.
In any case, it must mean that it's ok to own a small armoury. 'tis a weird world we live in.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: Arguing that guns are some kind of exception to this custom and so the killing must go on unimpeded is unpardonable. Why don't you argue as hard on banning automobiles as you do about banning guns?
quote: Automobiles are more dangerous than guns so why not the same outrage against cars as there is about guns? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2369 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
The concept of natural right is meaningless to me.
I could play a different word game too! If it's a natural right to have weapons, I would insist on the world natural. A gun doesn't occur naturally. I'm fine with them carrying sticks and stones if they want to as long as they found them on the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Or prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment? This is the question I have been trying to get Jon, Cat Sci and Faith to answer. Are all the rights preexisting just because of the particular grammar used? If not, how do we tell which were?
If you think that women should always have ought to been able to vote, then one way to phrase that is to say that they have a natural right to vote. That means that the right "existed" before the 19th amendment. Since we're talking about something that ought to be, rather than something that is, then we're not talking about something that is tangible, or that really "exists" in the normal sense of the word. You can tell what natural rights exist by what you think should have ought to have been. If you outright deny that women had a natural right to vote before the 19th, then you are saying that you don't think that they should have ought to have been able to vote before the 19th was passed. If so, then given the question of whether the should be allowed to vote, you would need some sort of reason to grant them that ability. On the other hand, if you do believe that women should have always been allowed to vote, then the question of whether they should be allowed to is already answered, and you don't need any reason to grant them that ability, but rather you can just tell everyone to stop denying them the right. The particular grammar used is not what causes a right to be preexisting. The grimmer hints at the mentality behind the authors of the amendment. As the 19th was written, it shows that the authors were, actually, of the mentality that women do have a natural right to vote, even before the 19th was passed. What that means is that they didn't think there needed to be a reason to grant women the right to vote, it was something that they always should have been able to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2369 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
First, we're not talking about banning guns, only a better regulation, you know like with cars.
Second, how can you compare a gun and a car? One is designed to kill and the other is designed to transport. That should tell you something. It's fun to compare the numbers of deaths but you should compare the number of deaths versus number of usages. How often do you drive a car and for how long? How often do you shoot with a gun? Please try a better argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
But it's a fundamental question, and one that you answered - the right to gun ownership is granted by the Creator God. I'm sure the Taliban and friends agree with you.
We can go on to consider your question of course, but not if you are denying the clear meaning of the text as not granting but protecting a pre-existing right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2369 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined:
|
So Tangle was right, a natural right is anything you want it to be.
It find it funny that now you're arguing that maybe sometimes mentality changes but when we're saying that the time has come to do some changes you fall back to what you think the original text says. Edited by Bliyaal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
Your own quote shoots you in the foot. The amendment applies only to the federal government; thus it can not be any kind of "natural right" that pre-exists the federal government - i.e. the Constitution.
From United States v. Cruikshank:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
It seems he truly cannot see the hypocrisy and how his argument changes completely depending on the point he wants to make at the moment.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So Tangle was right, a natural right is anything you want it to be. Well, you should be honest with yourself. But yes, you can imagine all kinds of different ways in which you think things ought to be.
It find it funny that now you're arguing that maybe sometimes mentality changes but when we're saying that the time has come to do some changes you fall back to what you think the original text says. lol wut?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024