But in considering "the value of the second amendment itself", we should consider its downside, like all those dead people. Its value may in fact be negative.
The point I'm making is that your downside will never be convincingly negative to the people who consider the second amendment to be an absolutely necessary provision for defense of home and country. There IS no "downside" that comes anywhere near the value they place on this right. The downside is in fact an invention of the Left mostly by people who don't know anything about guns and despise what they think of as the gun culture of America, speaking of it in slighting terms as most of you do on this thread. You will no doubt not change your valuation which puts what you consider to be the downside above their valuation; their valuation puts the second amendment above all your statistics, which they are not going to change either.
You seem to want us only to look at the potential upside: we should just look at "the principle of the right to defense of home and country", and that's the real point. Well, you could justify practically anything by only looking at the silver lining and not at the cloud.
This is no silver lining, this is the core of the second amendment argument, which as usual you seek to cast in derogatory terminology, not as the real point which it is to its defenders but as a mere "silver lining" to something that is otherwise just bad bad bad. So you push through YOUR valuation at the expense of your opponents. Your side keeps trying to make out that you have the "objective" argument here with your statistics, but as I've been pointing out the statistics are meaningless in comparison to the high value of the right to arms, to those who value it, which is not you but is something like half the population of the country. The statistics can be compared with those for anything that can be deadly if abused. Again, the fact that guns kill is NOT the definition according to defenders of the second amendment, that's something YOU want to spin in the service of your feeling about it, but on my side the definition is DEFENSE. Opinion, feeling, evaluation etc. is what this argument is about and it will be a very sad day in America if your opinion wins.
True, you did say that only about assault weapons, and I should have been careful to note that, but the same point applies. A great many second amendment defenders reject that definition as well, considering those guns to be necessary to arm citizens to something approaching the level of the police in order to fulfill the terms of self defense the second amendment guarantees, particularly defense against government tyranny which all the founders had in mind.
That does not in fact reject the definition. I say they're designed to kill; you reply, it seems, that there are people who would want to use them in a civil war, should the occasion arise. Well, quite.
See above, you are simply insisting on your definition. Sorry, killing is what guns do but their value has to do with their function for defense, which can occur without a shot being fired, but if it is fired and if it does kill in the service of defense of home, family or in a civil war, that's justified killing and surely what you have in mind is UNjustified killing. We ALL want to minimize UNjustified killing, accidental or by negligence or abuse and all that, which also applies to CARS and some DRUGS and so on and so forth.
Some guns are designed for target shooting, others for hunting, others for self-defense. Assault weapons are designed to massacre one's enemies as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Interestingly even the term "assault" weapon is disputed by many as something made up by people who simply think certain guns LOOK scarier than others. You are just following this made-up idea here.
Doubtless they would be great in the unlikely circumstance that someone has a legitimate reason to massacre lots of genuine enemies. In the meantime, they're useful principally to loonies who want to massacre people but who (whatever the voices may say) do not actually have a legitimate reason.
The usual leftist type straw man emotional spin. Can't you get off that ever? I guess not, it's all you have.
Here's a bit of a blog I posted on a while back by someone who impressed me as having a ton of relevant experience, which you can read about at the link if you are so inclined. Here's what he had to say about "assault" weapons:
Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).
To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.
The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.
I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.
And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.
Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
Faith writes: According to the blogger who had owned a gun store and taught concealed-carry that I posted on some time ago, guns are very heavily regulated indeed, but for some reason the idea prevails that they are not.
You don't say why this blogger thinks guns are actually "heavily regulated," but this is obviously not true. In many parts of the country you can walk into a Walmart and buy a gun, here's their page for the Smith & Wesson 811030 MP1522 Rifle, .22 Long Rifle. According to this article about Buying a Gun at Walmart, you fill out a long form, then there's a phone call to the ATF for a background check, and that's it. And apparently at many gun shows you can skip the background check.
Sounds like they could never be regulated ENOUGH for you, but I did find the blogger's post I was thinking of and he's talking about the laws he had to comply with and the paperwork he had to fill out as a gun store owner, which may not be sufficient for you but as he describes it, it does sound like a LOT of regulation that you obviously don't have in mind:
I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.
I don't think I'll address much more in your post. I will point out that I've posted over and over again here the evidence that the founders saw the militia as composed of the PEOPLE, specifically NOT as something the government put together. I believe that very idea is contained in the Connecticut constitution which was read by the Sandy Hook father whose testimony on video I included a few posts back. The PEOPLE are the militia. {ABE: I went back to post #1638 where I posted that video and found that the Connecticut Constitution guarantees the right of the citizen to bear arms for protection of self AND STATE (which implies that the citizen is part of the militia as defined by so many of the founders I've posted on here elsewhere)}.
A truly tyrannical government would not let political niceties like a 2nd amendment stand in its way. Anyway, while you paranoids are waiting for Armageddon one generation after the next, the rest of us have the right to live our lives safe from the dangers of guns.
Sorry, this is spin. This is like saying you have the right to live your lives safe from the dangers of crazy murderers who may use guns or many other means of doing their thing, which is sort of like saying you have the right to be safe from hurricanes, floods, fires and other "acts of God." Nonsense. You do NOT have the right to deprive half the country of the Constitutionally given right to own guns just because you insist on misdefining the problem of mass murder as a problem with gun ownership. Spin. Sophistry. Manipulative rhetoric.
Most other western-style societies like our own have much lower gun death rates. It isn't any mystery how they've accomplished this - they reduced gun ownership rates.
Yeah, and reducing car ownership rates would reduce deaths from cars too, and the same applies to all the other potentially lethal but useful items you listed back there somewhere.
Those "other western-style societies" are now sitting ducks for the tyranny you deny could possibly occur in our enlightened age. I'd rather not see America go that way myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
Well, so far it appears that your side is winning and we keep having very sad days in America. Grieving parents on the TV, flags at half-mast, that sort of thing.
Your folly, the left's folly and this thread's folly, is that you blame this on "my side," with the usual lying manipulative sophistry your side uses so well, just out to create the illusion that you're right, not caring one bit about truth. As the title says, "Just more leftist spin." If someone IS to blame for the killings it's YOUR side with your gun-free zones that invite murderers and your misplaced self-righteous zeal to do away with what WOULD protect people in these situations such as armed teachers, shop owners and so on which you should be encouraging instead of demeaning. You know this is my point of view, all we are doing is repeating ourselves but I can probably keep it up as long as you can.
See above, you are simply insisting on your definition. Sorry, killing is what guns do but their value has to do with their function for defense ...
Except that as I have pointed out, the "value" of an assault weapon is principally offensive. That's what makes it an assault weapon.
Except as the knowledgeable blogger I quoted pointed out, there is really no such thing as an assault weapon that is any more lethal than any other type of gun. This is just more leftist spin.
Interestingly even the term "assault" weapon is disputed by many as something made up by people who simply think certain guns LOOK scarier than others. You are just following this made-up idea here.
Please do not lie to me about what I am thinking.
Please do not lie to me about what I said. Your argument follows the same pattern so stuff the fingerpointing rhetoric. There's nothing personal about it. Your rhetoric is disgusting, all tactic, spin, accusation, manipulation. Typical leftist garbage.
How is that a "straw man"? Loonies do use assault weapons to massacre people. I didn't make that up. As for "emotional" --- again, it is simply a cold objective fact that this is what occurs. If my mentioning this fact happens to stir whatever vestigial sense of compassion you still have left, that's up to you, it's not as though I embellished the fact with tear-jerking rhetoric
I was referring to THIS as leftist spin:
Doubtless they would be great in the unlikely circumstance that someone has a legitimate reason to massacre lots of genuine enemies. In the meantime, they're useful principally to loonies who want to massacre people but who (whatever the voices may say) do not actually have a legitimate reason.
Your embellishment is in reducing the argument to terms that misrepresent the position of your opponent and using your usual denigrating false imagery, characterizing your opponent as only interested in massacring people. That's what a straw man is. The terms always appeal to some evil misuse of guns, far from what your opponents argue, and you ignore all the arguments about how anything useful but potentially lethal can be misused, and just keep coming back to your miserable mischaracterization, your hype, your exaggeration, your poisoning the well, your straw man. Such mischaracterizations are an appeal to emotion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons.
Obviously, this must be the truth for everyone so I'm sure that you would have no problem with either Iran or N. Korea having nuclear weapons as they obviously have the right to face their enemies, (namely the US), with equal weapons as well.
What a bunch of politically correct idiocy GDR. Right, it isn't that the second amendment is intended to protect US from our enemies, but now according to global PC we're to give our enemies the right to attack us via our amendment too.
OUR AMENDMENT FOR OUR DEFENSE, get it?
DEFENSE, GDR, DEFENSE, that's the purpose of the amendment, against aggressors AGAINST us.
That's all ICANT said. What is the matter with you liberals? You want us all dead obviously. Fortunately that will include you too.
No I don't agree with ICANT that we have the right to be armed to the degree of a modern army, but you should be tarred and feathered for your insane remark. And so should AZPaul for cheering it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
Just as there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms there are limits to the right to free speech, and I'm for tarring and feathering people who morally equate the aggressive murderous violence of our enemies with our right to self defense.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
His "point" is insane and evil, sorry, I don't care how "tongue in cheek" it was supposed to be and his "point" is wrong no matter how you look at it. There is NO equation between the AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE of Iran and Korea and OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE --
that's DEFENSE, D-E-F-E-N-S-E!
no matter how wrong ICANT might be about WHAT arms we have a right to. Consider yourself tarred and feathered.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
I would agree that jeers and cheers should not merely reflect what one agrees or disagrees with except that I have been jeered so often for perfectly civil posts, and some I worked hard at as well, therefore for what can only be disagreement, and often when I have absolutely no clue what provoked the jeer, I decided to do my best to bring down others' ratings for the same reason. Rahvin and Theodoric in particular throw jeers around like that. Way the game is played here, too bad but way it goes.
Sure, and that's no doubt a major reason they think they are jeering me. So what? It's still essentially a disagreement which is what others here were saying shouldn't be the target of a jeer. In any case it has ZERO edification value and only serves as antagonism for the sake of blowing off steam.
I'm responding primarily to how I am treated. There are three posters who seem to never miss a chance to jeer me and there is no way to know why, it's just pure hatred. Yes I may take it out on others who don't play that game.
Glad you enjoyed it. It was really mostly a whimsical post for your entertainment. Amusing little song. I do think however that it's fair to call Jackson's rather ragtag army a citizen army. They were made up of quite a motley crew. See picture at 2:29 on the counter. Those were guys who brought their own guns with them.
Yes, indeed, that's what they were, the armed citizenry called up for service, which is exactly what the Second Amendment had in mind.
They were called up and trained, at least for the time available to train, and placed under the command of government appointed generals.
Righto. All consistent with the idea of the militia in the Second Amendment. They were not a standing army, they were citizen gun owners called together and trained for this war.
If there is some point for an armed citizenry during peacetime here, I think something more than naming the battle and calling the soldier's rag tag is needed.
The idea is that an armed citizenry is necessary for defense of home and family and country when needed. The point is that the militia is made up of gun owning citizens. They can be trained periodically in peacetime it seems to me, not just trained at the last minute for an invasion, but those are the details, the principle is the same.
™ Version 4.2
(1)