Summations Only

Total crap. You have esteemed company in the Supreme Court in ignoring the leading qualifier of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...", but the position itself is nonsense.This shouldn't have to be explained yet again, but what the heck. Say you have an amendment that says:

quote:

---

"The need of farmers to irrigate their crops to provide sustenance to the nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of farmers to draw as much water as necessary from local water sources shall not be infringed."

---

A farmer builds himself a water bottling plant and begins selling Farmer's Pure bottled water. During a water shortage he draws so much water from local sources that his neighbors don't have enough water for their own crops, and they take him to court. It eventually arrives at the Supreme Court which rules that the amendment means that the farmer does indeed have a right to the water, that it is an inherent right. This would make as little sense as the Supreme Court's current position on the Second Amendment. Which, allow me to emphasize, is only their *current* position.If I could editorialize a bit, even the slightest acquaintance with history informs us that the world has been a dangerous place in many times and places, and that self defense would have been important. But as societies become more civilized the need for self defense lessens and eventually crosses a threshold where defensive weapons provide a much greater threat to their owners and everyone they know than to anyone else. We crossed that threshold a long time ago in the United States.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Huh? No it doesn't. The leading qualifier make absolutely clear that it doesn't: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."If the Second Amendment truly read as though gun ownership were a natural right it would have begun something more like, "There being certain inalienable rights of man,..."--Percy

People arming themselves is the entire cause of gun violence. Disarming people is the best answer, though there are stopgap measures such as using technology to make guns safer.You're arguing that people should have the right to place themselves and those around them in greater danger. As far as placing themselves in greater danger, maybe you have a point, though I'm not so sure. After all, there *are* such things as seat belt and helmet laws. But as far as placing others in greater danger, no, they do not have that right, and that's what people are doing when they buy guns.--Percy

Hopefully this is sarcasm. Is there a missing ? I've posted as moderator a few times, but only very generally and hopefully with great circumspection. Anyone who wants to see my posts as moderator should click here. Certainly I've never taken the position about restricting discussion that Jon expressed.--Percy

Just as your right to extend your fist ends at my nose, your right to arm yourself for self defense ends at other people's right to live their lives in safety. In purchasing a gun you place yourself and those you know in greater danger. If you don't care about yourself then at least care about others. As are guns.--Percy

What I'm hearing from you is: We can tell what side of the issue you're on, we can tell you don't agree with us, and you've told us your specific position on a few things, but not much else and certainly no supporting arguments. You seem intent on disagreeing and criticizing while not putting forth any actual specific arguments.--Percy

You're embracing nonsense. This is impossible to argue against. You're like Trump who, for example, when challenged on his attitudes about woman responded (paraphrasing), "So?" He has no shame, no embarrassment, no remorse, no conscience. How does one argue with that?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Just, FYI, that is still a bald declaration with no supporting arguments.More cars mean more vehicle fatalities, more backyard pools mean more accidental drownings, more guns mean more gun deaths. Guns are the only item in this list that have no useful purpose for your average citizen. We know many people *think* guns have a useful purpose for self defense, but the evidence shows that they're mistaken. The evidence says that guns increase the risk of injury and death, both to oneself and one's friends and family.I'm know I'm hammering on a very narrow point, but it is by far the most important point. It doesn't matter what rights are natural, legal or otherwise. It doesn't matter what the current position of the Supreme Court is. It doesn't matter how many deaths are due to other causes like cancer and cars. What matters is that the best way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns. The next best way is to improve gun safety technology, for example, so they can't unintentionally fire at people or can't be fired by non-authorized people (this is the approach that worked so well for automobiles, though the car industry had to be prodded by government). The next best way is to improve guns laws and enforcement of those laws (this is the approach that doesn't work so well for automobiles, and it wouldn't work so well for guns, either).--Percy

I'm ignoring nothing relevant to the discussion I was having with someone else about something other than what you are discussing.

Nonsense, Percy. The folks who wrote the Amendment saw no need in making such a declaration, since they all believed in the existence of natural rights and had already made a declaration of such not long before.At most you can argue that it is for the sake of the militia that the authors of the Amendment considered against the government's power to infringe on what they saw as the natural right to bear arms. But the issue of the militia is completely irrelevant to the fact that Amendment clearly reads as though regarding the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a natural right.

Your arguments would be more compelling if they were not just assertions and you used some evidence and references to back them up.

Oh that's right; I must have read this in a different thread about guns:

quote:

---

Percy in Message 571:

​

I wanted to discuss how or if we can reduce gun deaths in the US.

---

Or this...

quote:

---

Percy in Message 1223:

​

Just to add my 2 cents, if he's saying he wants to talk about non-gun deaths, since in this thread the topic is gun control it doesn't seem like the right place for that discussion.

---

Uh... wait a minute...

And your arguments would be more compelling if they actually existed.Man; that was easy.

He did eventually answer my post. He indicated that it was unfair for me to hold him to his former position.

No, that's not my position.It doesn't grant natural rights. It grants legal rights.Whenever it is explicit about rights, it speaks of them as if they are natural ones, not legal ones.That reflects the mentality behind it. I've done that.It stems from your right to self defense to your right to arm yourself with a weapon in pursuit of that.If you're in the park and somebody assaults you, then you have the right to pick up a tree branch and hit them with it to protect your self.The weapons that people should have the legal right arm themselves with depends on the technology of the times.And just like we do with the first amendment, where the internet is speech, we'll incorporate new technology into the right.Where the line gets drawn is a whole 'nother debate, but it is frivolous to argue against people having the right to guns in particular, by arguing that they don't have the right to arm themselves in general.