Summations Only

Its an ought, not an is. Nothing is required to exist for an ought to be there.

It doesn't read that the right to keep and bear arms "ought" not be infringed.It's a commandment, and one that is obviously not universal. If it's a "natural right", why isn't it recognized in every state constitution?

The ability to keep and bear arms is what ought to be. That is what cannot be infringed. A government denying you a right does not mean that it shouldn't ought to be."Not is" does not mean "ought not".

ICANT asks: I think there has been a tremendous outrage. You have heard of Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" and MADD?? The cops & courts around the country have stepped up their penalties for DD.And the advances on car safety have made big differences in deaths per vehicle mile traveled. They almost have fallen *under* the gun deaths, as you, yourself, quoted - missing by a mere 1310 for that year. Who knows what it is 3-4 years later as more old cars get retired? PLUS there is an unknown factor of exposure probabilities. It's hard to really compare the two events.It's just that the gun outrage is more in vogue this day. - nate

A lot of things ought to be but aren't. What the Second Amendment SAYS has nothing to do with what ought to be. It's about reality. And it's talking about the security of a free state, not the right of any individual.

Your argument concerning the 19th amendment is that those who proposed it viewed the women right to vote as a natural right. Obviously their predecessors didn't agree because it was ratified only in 1920. So you're arguing that mentalities change and the constitution should reflect this... except for your love of guns.So... in your words : lol wut?

That's a silly and misleading question. I could as unreasonably and inaccurately ask, "Why don't you care as much about saving lives as you do about saving souls?"Anyway, you've arrived late to the party, you should see Message 3763 and read forward, but I'll summarize for you: Of course I'm concerned about motor vehicle deaths, but that's not the topic of this thread.--Percy

Assume the right to own and bear arms anywhere and anytime is the law of the land. How are you going to reduce gun deaths?Very interesting syntax in the second half of your post.--Percy

Well, 2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides, and I think people have the right to choose to die, so those aren't really worth pursuing reducing. There are people who make rash decisions for suicide, and that is a shame, but the avenue to solve that involves mental health care not gun laws.The other ~12,000 gun deaths per year amounts to about 0.4% of total deaths (in the U.S.), so I don't see gun deaths as something that particularly needs reducing. We have way more important things to worry about.But if I did, I'd go with stronger sentencing on existing gun crimes. Like, really severe out of balance sentences. For one, you keep the people who are willing to use guns illegally off of the streets, and for two, hopefully the strength of the sentencing will dissuade other people from committing future gun crimes. It'd take a few years to balance out, but I do think that would reduce gun deaths.What I don't think should happen is reducing the rights of law abiding citizens, nor removing their ability to make the decision for themselves if they should have a gun or not.I don't think that making gun deaths out to be some kind of severe catastrophe that we just have to address, nor pointing that there are dangers associated with gun ownership, will carry any weight for the pro-gun crowd. So those arguments are practically worthless.Too, the Fallacy of Composition isn't helping. Like, I'm not married and don't have kids, so the danger to those two are immediately removed from my personal risk assessment for gun ownership. Pointing out that I'm more likely to shoot my wife or kids than a criminal carries exactly zero weight for me. Too, I have been explicitly threatened with violence from gang members that are acquainted with me, so I do have a little something to worry about.Also, since the deterrence of crime cannot be measured, statistics on how likely you are to "shoot a criminal" are fairly meaningless to me too. I think that the prevalence of guns does deter crimes like burglary and assault, but that's never going to be captured in the stats.But I'm definitely willing to trade the lives of a handful of felony gang members fighting turf wars in the city to prevent the rape of my neighbor who writes children's' books.

No shit, Sherlock.And just because it ought to be doesn't mean it has to be. What the Second Amendment SAYS just shows what the authors thought should ought to be. And the reality is that individuals ought to be able to arm themselves.

I am?

Well you argued that was what they did when they proposed the 19th amendment and didn't see you going against it like you do with your love of guns. You said they considired it a natural right even if they didn't have it. Was it a natural right or not in your mind?Your mental gymnastics are hard to follow, especially when you refuse to respond to arguments.

I did? Huh? You didn't see me going against my own argument like I go against my love of guns?I'm not following you. In my mind, I don't know. Read the words, stick to the position. Forget the person, and reply to what was actually written.This whole interpreting arguments into what I must really be meaning just does not work. What argument have I refused to respond to?

I'm taking a break. You do everything you can to get on the nerves of people here with you evasion tactics and I need to relax before I get suspended.Meanwhile, you could go read my posts and actually reply to them. You want me to stick to write? Maybe you should start writing then.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.