gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The founding fathers did not specifically include the right to own and ride a horse. It was something absolutely necessary for survival and was an assumed right.


The only "rights" you have are constitutional rights.

Besides, horses are dangerous, and the guys who rode them are douches because the broke all kinds of trail laws and were manics on those things with invalid licenses.

And if you tried to make your horse pass a wagon while in a double yellow zone, the guy in the wagon might go nuts and conduct some "trial rage" and server over in to your path and cause you to get bucked off.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

You didn't know that? Really?


Our 6th grade social studies teachers tell us these things then we go through life like its a fact.


You don't think it's fact? Or did you not like social studies?

 

[dishdude]

What about the fourth amendment? I don't see anyone passionately defending our right to keep the government from mass collection of our phone calls, emails, text messages and other communications. I don't even see anyone really pushing to stop the illegal seizures that are occurring across the country where people are losing assets without due process.

Funny the same people that defend any amount of gun control say if you ain't got nothin' to hide, you ain't got nothin to worry about when it concerns the government snooping on us and police departments arbitrarily taking private property.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
What about the fourth amendment? I don't see anyone passionately defending our right to keep the government from mass collection of our phone calls, emails, text messages and other communications.


Wasn't all that "legalized" via the Patriot Act?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The right of owning a gun can be revoked if you violate certain laws.

If you poll the country and ask which would you rather keep. Car or gun.

Who in their right mind is going to answer gun?

There's a very good reason that the Constitution of the United States doesn't have, among its amendment formulae, the public opinion poll.

dishdude: There are people passionately defending people's privacy rights. But, like gun rights, or any other rights, one has to choose to exercise them. People obviously aren't very concerned about their privacy rights when they flock to things like gmail and their targeted ads based upon email content. As for email encryption, I have personally spoken to a whole four people who know how to use it, and one of them was Phil Zimmerman.

 

[dnewton3]

There is a difference between the design intent of a tool and the action intent of a human.

Guns are designed to do many things; achieve many tasks. Some are obviously designed to be very effective at the cessation of life, specifically in combat. But there are lots of others that are for hunting, pleasure shooting, etc. They are tools by a very fair definition.

Vehicles are designed to do many things; achieve many tasks. Some are obviously designed to transport with efficiency, either people or items. Some are designed more for pleasure (sports cars, off-roading, etc). They are tools by a very fair definition.

Both can be used appropriately or inappropriately. As I defined earlier in this thread, that definition is guided by moral judgements regarding the taking of a life.


Hence, the design intent of the tool has no real bearing on the outcome of death. There are more people killed by cars by accident than are killed by guns on purpose; about 2x more. There are FAR MORE killed by the medical industry by accident than guns kill on purpose. The intent of the tool is anecdotal to the quantity and quality of life taken. Dead = dead, period.

You can take away or greatly restrict the access to a tool, but that does NOT change the intent of a person. It only changes the manner in which they kill. See that LONG list I put together; I can show you a heinous event that is disgusting, regardless if a gun was used or not. In some manner, at least a gun is someone (don't laugh here) "humane" in terms of it's efficiency. Think being shot to death is bad? What about being burned to death in a microwave oven as an infant, where every cell in your body is exploding because the pressure in your cells is causing the moisture to expand with the heating effect. Or how would you feel gasping for your last sliver of air as bailing twine were tightened around your windpipe as you are strangled, conscious of your lack of oxygen, but still able to discern the fact that your own family member is causing your demise. Or maybe your eyes are still transmitting electrical images to your brain, as your head falls to the ground after being decapitated for those brief few seconds while your blood pressure is still high enough to be conscious, where you see your fellow student standing over you with a kitchen knife. Am I supposed to believe that being shot by a gun is more evil, simply because the gun was made to kill, versus some other methodology being more preferable because the intent of the appliance, wire or knife was otherwise? Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Take away one weapon and another will emerge. The intent of the weapon has no effect on the results. Remember, I'm a results oriented guy. Show me that altering the intent of a weapon has effect on the intent of the action; I don't see it. I can demonstrate the heinous nature of mankind with any manner of tool you'd like to hear about.

I can also show you that we, as a nation, are NOT anywhere close to being a murder capital of the world, despite our massive private gun ownership. The highest examples of death per capita are actually in countries where personal firearm ownership is quite low due to over-regulation.


I am asking this next question ONLY of the anti-gun people. I don't want pro-gun people to chime in.
Why are you so outraged by a tool, and want to control the aspects surrounding the tool, when the tool has no ability to affect the selection of the weapon by the murderer? Why focus on the intent of the weapon when the intent of the person it not altered by the over-regulation? Is it your supposition that the regulation would stop the murders? If that is your mantra, then can you explain how that, in your view, would stop the events from happening with a different tool? Can you show me FBI, DOJ, CDC, OJP and other data that would lead to such conclusions?

The US has a fairly high death rate by guns when murder is the topic. But the US is also fairly safe in terms of overall murder rate, worldwide, per capita, despite our very high private ownership. But if we took away guns here in the US, would murder rates drop, or just shift to another tool?

Show me results that indicate the elimination of a class of tool results in the corresponding effect in reduction of murder, long term. Show me why your approach has merit, please. I don't see it. And I'm using this thread as a means to exhibit the dichotomy of hypocrisy when it comes to gun-control topics.

And don't talk politics; that's taboo. Don't focus on inputs. Show me the results that indicate your mantra is proven to be effective in reality.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.


+1. What kind of [censored] holes do people live in and put up with to get to that point.

At least move yourself and guns to a more hospitable place.....


Your argument lacks any factual basis. Try again.

This guy lived in a 1.5 million dollar home. On a street surrounded by other million dollar plus homes. He couldn't have moved to a more safe spot in America if he tried. And yet evil still found him. And raped his wife and daughters and he listened to them burn to death as he was tied up. Do you think that he owns guns now? I would bet $1000 on that answer. The police were outside his house, and did nothing. And they failed that man terribly and did nothing to stop the crimes/rapes/murders from occurring. 911 is an abject failure lots of the time. I know. I used to answer 911 calls, so I have seen how the system can fail people. The BEST way to defend your home/loved ones is a firearm. PERIOD!! The police are there to take a picture of your dead body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders



CT has a higher crime in New England. All states have $1.5M homes which may normal to mansions. You live in fear I don't. Sorry you have to live in such a way. Odds are well in your favor and mine that nothing will ever happen ever.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The founding fathers did not specifically include the right to own and ride a horse. It was something absolutely necessary for survival and was an assumed right.


The only "rights" you have are constitutional rights.


You guys both have it completely backwards. Unfortunately what you are saying has almost become true today, but the intent of the US constitution is that the government only exists to protect the inherent rights everyone has from their creator. It may list certain rights that it wishes to do so for specific reasons, but unlike most of the rest of the world's constitutions it is not a list of rights granted by the government. It specifically states that rights do not come from the government but instead are inherent and the government exists to protect them.

To think that the US constitution lists or grants rights has it completely backwards. It is assumed you have a right unless there is a compelling reason for the people to restrict it for a greater good.

And you both know exactly why the right to bear arms was specifically called out as a reminder. Note that it does not give the right, it simply states that the already existing right shall not be infringed. The reason why this right was directly stated is not a mystery.

 

[surfstar]

As Jim Jeffries said in his bit
"Its called an assault rifle, not a protection rifle"

What was its designed intent again? Oh yeah, killing people en mass.


I still don't see how you guys all believe that "militia" means an individual; RE: the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that. Not the founding fathers.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
As Jim Jeffries said in his bit
"Its called an assault rifle, not a protection rifle"

What was its designed intent again? Oh yeah, killing people en mass.


I still don't see how you guys all believe that "militia" means an individual; RE: the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that. Not the founding fathers.


Do you have an issue with the look, round or the magazine capacity?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
To think that the US constitution lists or grants rights has it completely backwards. It is assumed you have a right unless there is a compelling reason for the people to restrict it for a greater good.

It definitely helps when someone's read the Federalist Papers and understands the intent, right?

surfstar: The Second Amendment does refer to individuals. Even I, in Canada, have read those Supreme Court decisions.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
I still don't see how you guys all believe that "militia" means an individual; RE: the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that. Not the founding fathers.


First, this can be discussed and keep politics out of this. This isn't about a party stance, or about dogma. This can be taken at face value, and discussed with only the wording in mind as taken right from the Constitution. DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT POLITICS; IT'S NOT. When the Constitution and BoR were written, there was no designation put in writing about which party wrote which Amendment, or which party pushed an agenda. This is for ALL of us to use! This is NOT politics, this is about RIGHTS for ALL.

Let me ask you these, and then I'll answer your question.

Does the 1st Amendment only protect a collective right to free speech, and the right of each individual to speak freely? And what of a right to practice your choice of (don't freak out on the word here ...) religion? Is it ONLY a right for a congregation to worship, but not a single person to have and express faith? After all, nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it clearly express an individual right, and it uses the term "people" and not "person". So "people" can worship and speak, but a "person" can't?

What of the 4th Amendment? Are you suggesting that only groups of people can expect to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure? Perhaps only a commune or a social fraternity, because they are groups of people, would have an expectation of protection against government over-reach? As a single person, you'd have no right to expect a warrant or writ to be required prior to search and/or seizure? In the wording of the 4th, it speaks to the "right of the people", not "person". If I take your mantra from the 2nd Amendment, and apply it to the 4th, then only the large group collective would have this 4th Amendment protection. Correct?

What of the 5th? Are you comfortable with the concept of having to testify against yourself? And being tried twice for the same crime? Because, after all, those rights only would apply to a group and not an individual? Interestingly this Amendment does use the singular word "person" and not "people"; is this where you base your argument against the 2nd?

What of the 6th Amendment? It stated the "accused" has a right ... but is that a single or plural word? It does only state "him" and "his", but not "her", so perhaps only men have these rights and not women?


Etc
Etc



Keep in mind this following sequence; the BoR came AFTER the Constitution. The Constitution already previously granted the ability of Congress to establish an Army and Navy. Therefore the concept of the "Militia" was NOT about a country defending itself against outward threats. The "well regulated militia" is about the common man defending himself against the inward threats from government. NEVER confuse the "Militia" in the 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights for the "Army" and "Navy" in the body of the Articles; they are totally different topics. Those who think the collective militia term was only intended for group defense in external threats sorely misunderstand the two separate facets of the Constitution. The BoR was a post-Constitutional mandate from the States to make sure each and every person had these Rights as individuals.




As a Deputy, I find your suggestion that the 2nd Amendment is only a collective right very intriguing. If that right is to be considered only a collective right, and not an individual right, then cannot I spread that logic elsewhere? You've certainly made my job as a cop a whole lot easier. If that applied to the other rights in the Bill of Rights, I'd have it easy as a cop. But perhaps you'd change your mind after I pull you over with no good reason, yank you out of the car, plant evidence on your person, impound your car for the fun of it, beat a confession out of you, put you on trial with no preparation or representation, after a long and boring stay in jail with no expediency to get your hearing in front of a partial, biased group of my friends and not your peers. And if for some reason the jury actually finds you innocent the first time, I'll just have you tried again and again, as a single person, until I like the outcome. And then when you are in prison, I'm going to beat you again, and cause cruel/unusual punishment because you, as an individual, don't get protection because you're not a collective.

I think you now understand the frail nature of your position.

Further, if you REALLY want to play the devil's advocate, then I'll ask why my gun rights seem to cease at the state border? Why does my Indiana handgun license end at the state line, but all my other "rights" extend across this great nation? Does my Indiana residency mean I have no right against warrant-less searches in KY or AZ? Does one's MT residency mean they cannot worship in CT or NH? Does the fact that you live in FL mean you have no right to keep silent at your trial in CA or NM?
So please tell me why my 2nd Amendment right to carry a weapon stops at the state line ....


Your logic I quoted above seems to conveniently ignore the over-riding principles of the BoR. You seem to think the word "militia" means some collective, although the sentence continues in using the world "people", in your view as a collective and not individual right. But all the other Amendments using the word "people" seem to mean a singular right to an individual. Sir, I will be blunt here; that is blind and hypocritical of you. You don't get to pick and chose here. Either these are ALL INDIVIDUAL rights or not. So pick a position and stick to it.


Please explain how you believe that the Founding Fathers decided to obscurely make that 2nd Amendment completely and utterly different from all the others, when the BoR seems to make an effort to protect the individual rights in all those other circumstances.



I see the 2nd Amendment clearly applying to the individual just as I see all the others in the BoR doing the same. Apparently you and I had a very different Civics class in high-school.


.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The founding fathers did not specifically include the right to own and ride a horse. It was something absolutely necessary for survival and was an assumed right.


The only "rights" you have are constitutional rights.


You guys both have it completely backwards. Unfortunately what you are saying has almost become true today, but the intent of the US constitution is that the government only exists to protect the inherent rights everyone has from their creator. It may list certain rights that it wishes to do so for specific reasons, but unlike most of the rest of the world's constitutions it is not a list of rights granted by the government. It specifically states that rights do not come from the government but instead are inherent and the government exists to protect them.

To think that the US constitution lists or grants rights has it completely backwards. It is assumed you have a right unless there is a compelling reason for the people to restrict it for a greater good.

And you both know exactly why the right to bear arms was specifically called out as a reminder. Note that it does not give the right, it simply states that the already existing right shall not be infringed. The reason why this right was directly stated is not a mystery.


The "rights" listed in the constitution are all man-made laws. The word "right" is used through out the constitution. They are not chiseled in stone as the message to the world, and they are only man controlled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Mystic]

The Constitution is the foundation for laws in the USA. And the Constitution can not be easily changed, except through the Supreme Court and a majority of states approving a change.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The founding fathers did not specifically include the right to own and ride a horse. It was something absolutely necessary for survival and was an assumed right.


The only "rights" you have are constitutional rights.


You guys both have it completely backwards. Unfortunately what you are saying has almost become true today, but the intent of the US constitution is that the government only exists to protect the inherent rights everyone has from their creator. It may list certain rights that it wishes to do so for specific reasons, but unlike most of the rest of the world's constitutions it is not a list of rights granted by the government. It specifically states that rights do not come from the government but instead are inherent and the government exists to protect them.

To think that the US constitution lists or grants rights has it completely backwards. It is assumed you have a right unless there is a compelling reason for the people to restrict it for a greater good.

And you both know exactly why the right to bear arms was specifically called out as a reminder. Note that it does not give the right, it simply states that the already existing right shall not be infringed. The reason why this right was directly stated is not a mystery.


The "rights" listed in the constitution are all man-made laws. The word "right" is used through out the constitution. They are not chiseled in stone as the message to the world, and they are only man controlled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Certain rights are considered inalienable and natural.

That means certain rights are not granted to us by other men nor should they require a document. They should be self evident.

When it comes to firearms, yes firearms are man made, but the concept of having the right to self defense is inalienable.

It is then up to us to decide what are reasonable ways to carry out self defense. That way nuclear weapons are prohibited, microwaves do not come in the picture, and guns go somewhere in between.

And of course things change over time. So laws need to be changed. For example, there were no nuclear weapons or microwaves when the constitution was written.

Jefferson wanted the constitution to be revisited every 20 years. He recognized that things change and also the older folk die off and the younger folk may see things differently.

Some states followed his lead on this enshrining the idea that their constitution should evolve with the times.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Certain rights are considered inalienable and natural.

That means certain rights are not granted to us by other men nor should they require a document. They should be self evident.


Only as interpreted by the minds of mankind standing on Earth. All of these laws and rights are all ultimately man-made, and could very well be changed sometime in the future - as you also eluded to.

But hopefully, the people that uphold these man-made laws will see fit to continue to look at them as "inalienable and natural" with solid logic.

 

[Nyati]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Benito
Certain rights are considered inalienable and natural.

That means certain rights are not granted to us by other men nor should they require a document. They should be self evident.


Only as interpreted by the minds of mankind standing on Earth. All of these laws and rights are all ultimately man-made, and could very well be changed sometime in the future - as you also eluded to.

But hopefully, the people that uphold these man-made laws will see fit to continue to look at them as "inalienable and natural" with solid logic.


Inalienable rights are not man made. They come from God.

Cars are man made. So are guns.

If a drunk driver drives a car into a crowd and kills innocent bystanders - the drunk driver is blamed - the car is not evil.
If a nutcase shoots innocent bystanders in a crowd - the gun is blamed - not the nut behind the trigger. Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.


Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....

 

[Nyati]

Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.


Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....


There are 200 million+ guns in the US alone. Most of them must be defective- because there are not 200 million deaths each year. There are many many more deaths by vehicles each year. No matter what their primary purpose.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.


Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....


This "inanimate object" argument is so intellectually void, I have to use this smily:

So a gun is an inanimate object. And people blame guns. Now what? What is your point?

Get over this idea that people are blaming guns and not people. Of course people are to blame. The point is that some "inanimate objects" are more deadly than others.

Why do we spend billions trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Do we care that they are inanimate objects or do we care that they are going to be more dangerous if they get into the wrong hands?

What about chemical weapons? Cluster bombs? Again, who goes around proclaiming that they're inanimate objects and that people shouldn't blame these inanimate objects?

Ridiculous.