next »

[livefreeordie2]

The US Constitution recognized the prior existence of that right and prohibited the government from infringing upon it.

How did a "right" in this country exist before the Constitution?  That is, we are a nation of laws:  if it isn't written down somewhere, you don't have a "right" to it.  A "right" has to be codified under the law in order for it to exist.

And this right was in effect in, oh, the late 1700's.  Surely we've evolved just a bit since then.

I guess I'm a little bit flabbergasted. . . are you an American Citizen?  I'm not trying to be intentionally unkind, but if you are, did you ever get past US History in secondary school?  You've got to be joking, right?

Well, on the off chance that you are serious, let me refer you to the US Declaration of Independence, specifically: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[livefreeordie2]

The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document written in a specific time and place that reflects the values of a particular culture at a particular time. Both documents do not reflect contemporary culture in many ways, and cultures change over time, of course. So even if one interprets the second amendment as giving individuals the right to carry guns, it is an outdated document. Those who interpret the Bible and the constitution literally are unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge that cultures change and laws need to change in accordance with the changing culture.

The US Constitution is the framework for the greatest (no, not perfect, but still far greater than any other country) country ever conceived.  It comes with a built in process for changing it if that is the will of the people of the United States.  If you and like-minded people believe that it needs to change in accordance with the changing culture, all you need to do is get it through both houses of Congress and ratified by the States.

Of course, there are probably folks who would disagree with you. . . people who don't think that the foundation for the country they live in should be subject to change if women's hemlines go up or pinstripe suits go out of style. . .

[prytania3]

The problem with the pro-gun people is their refusal to be honest. If they just said, "I don't give a rat's ass how many people die every year because of guns, as long as I get to keep mine," I really could respect them more.

[bio_prof_]

The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document written in a specific time and place that reflects the values of a particular culture at a particular time. Both documents do not reflect contemporary culture in many ways, and cultures change over time, of course. So even if one interprets the second amendment as giving individuals the right to carry guns, it is an outdated document. Those who interpret the Bible and the constitution literally are unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge that cultures change and laws need to change in accordance with the changing culture.

The US Constitution is the framework for the greatest (no, not perfect, but still far greater than any other country) country ever conceived.  It comes with a built in process for changing it if that is the will of the people of the United States.  If you and like-minded people believe that it needs to change in accordance with the changing culture, all you need to do is get it through both houses of Congress and ratified by the States.

Of course, there are probably folks who would disagree with you. . . people who don't think that the foundation for the country they live in should be subject to change if women's hemlines go up or pinstripe suits go out of style. . .

many of my students don't believe in evolution, either. *sigh*.

[trabb]

<Shrug>  That's why it's not worthwhile getting into a statistical debate on this or any other political issue.  People tend to only believe research that supports their own point of view. . .

I would agree that people tend to believe only research that supports their own point of view - once they have figured out what their point of view is.  Let me quote something I posted earlier today:

I don't have clear answers in my own head to these questions.  I will say that I have yet to see a compelling case that armed citizens necessarily yields safer citizens; if someone knows of such a study, I'd like to see it.  I am open to the idea that we exchange certain things in order to maintain basic freedoms of U.S. citizens and that the freedom to choose to bear arms is important enough to give up some level of safety.

I've asked this question several times over the past few days.  A number of people have posted links to articles that demonstrate fairly convincingly that an increase in certain types of firearms yields an increase in violent crime.  I still have not seen anyone point me to research showing the opposite.

Two things I would add here:  1) I could do my own research on the subject, but it's the end of the semester, and I simply don't have the time right now.  I'm also not the one making arguments about what should/shouldn't be policy.  2)  Research will not necessarily provide a satisfactory answer for me.  Even if all studies concluded that more guns = more violence, that doesn't necessarily equate to "we should ban certain types of guns." 

Since you keep implying that there is research to support your position (that you just aren't willing to post?), I'd like to see it.  I haven't yet made up my mind, so you needn't worry about me disagreeing with research for that reason.  If it's such a concern to you that other forumites will dismiss the research because they've already made up their own minds, then by all means PM me the references.

[jonesey]

The US Constitution recognized the prior existence of that right and prohibited the government from infringing upon it.

How did a "right" in this country exist before the Constitution?  That is, we are a nation of laws:  if it isn't written down somewhere, you don't have a "right" to it.  A "right" has to be codified under the law in order for it to exist.

And this right was in effect in, oh, the late 1700's.  Surely we've evolved just a bit since then.

I guess I'm a little bit flabbergasted. . . are you an American Citizen?  I'm not trying to be intentionally unkind, but if you are, did you ever get past US History in secondary school?  You've got to be joking, right?

Well, on the off chance that you are serious, let me refer you to the US Declaration of Independence, specifically: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You're not being unkind.  : )

No, I never took any U.S. History after high school, but I do know about the Declaration of Independence.  I missed the part where gun ownership was part of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" though. 

You're talking about specific, legal rights, not generic "rights" like the ones encapsulated above.  Specific legal rights have to be codified, hence, gun laws. 

The second amendment has been outdated for years now, but it's political death to mess with it, so here we are. 

Mind you, I don't thing guns themselves are the problem, I think the vast majority of people are simply too stupid to own them.  Even the most basic of military trainees receives hours and hours of training before being handed a weapon.  Why should anyone else be held to a lower standard?

[phlebas2006]

The US Constitution recognized the prior existence of that right and prohibited the government from infringing upon it.

How did a "right" in this country exist before the Constitution?  That is, we are a nation of laws:  if it isn't written down somewhere, you don't have a "right" to it.  A "right" has to be codified under the law in order for it to exist.

And this right was in effect in, oh, the late 1700's.  Surely we've evolved just a bit since then.

I guess I'm a little bit flabbergasted. . . are you an American Citizen?  I'm not trying to be intentionally unkind, but if you are, did you ever get past US History in secondary school?  You've got to be joking, right?

Well, on the off chance that you are serious, let me refer you to the US Declaration of Independence, specifically: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You're not being unkind.  : )

No, I never took any U.S. History after high school, but I do know about the Declaration of Independence.  I missed the part where gun ownership was part of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" though. 

You're talking about specific, legal rights, not generic "rights" like the ones encapsulated above.  Specific legal rights have to be codified, hence, gun laws. 

The second amendment has been outdated for years now, but it's political death to mess with it, so here we are. 

Mind you, I don't thing guns themselves are the problem, I think the vast majority of people are simply too stupid to own them.  Even the most basic of military trainees receives hours and hours of training before being handed a weapon.  Why should anyone else be held to a lower standard?

Jonesey, no no no no no no no no.  O...M...G...  You've got it completely backwards.  The right exists--they're "natural" rights that we're born having, from the Creator.  Governments are instituted among men to secure those rights--whatever rights we're talking about--take it completely away from guns.  Governments and legislators don't "give" you rights--you already have them; we create governments to protect those rights.

Yikes.

[mrrational]

The problem with the pro-gun people is their refusal to be honest. If they just said, "I don't give a rat's ass how many people die every year because of guns, as long as I get to keep mine," I really could respect them more.

Quite a lovely little ad hominem attack you have going on, here.  Let's see if I can formulate a suitably acidic response:

"The problem with the anti-gun people is their refusal to be honest.  If they just said, 'I don't give a rat's ass how many people are deprived of their property, as long as I get to save those ignorant bastards from themselves,' I really could respect them more."

Now that we have that out of our systems, how's about let's act like the adults we are, restrict ourselves to the subject at hand, and not get so carried away that we manage to completely demonize those on the other side of the debate?

[john_proctor]

Plus, it removes any ability to defend one's self in one's home if your guns are locked away and off premises.  They are only fancy toys, then.

People who think that they can, without supervised and regularly reinforced training in martial use of a gun as a weapon, use a gun for self-defense are as deluded and dangerous as those who race down the highway thinking that, because they know how to drive, they can do it like NASCAR pros.

The core of your point is proven wrong almost every day in this country.  That it doesn't make CNN or CBS Evening News does not mean it doesn't happen.  Check the local sections of newspapers around this country. . .

Don't misunderstand, I think people who own guns should be trained in their responsible use.  But defending youself from an intruder in your home can be a matter of life or death, over in a matter of seconds.  At least, when armed, people have a chance rather than automatically becoming victims.  

Not really.  The ratio of one or two per day who succeed (from dumb luck?) verses the ratio of people who fail (perhaps disastrously) bears it out.

The fact that a person a day uses the weapon effectively (even if that were the case) does not mitigate the much higher rates of abuse or failure any more than the fact that some idiot who drives the I-95/495 beltway at 85 mph with aggressive weaving and lives means they are not a dangerous idiot.

Talk to anyone who has trained soldiers for the military; they will assure you that the folks who come "knowing how to shoot" can be some of the most dangerous and difficult to train because they already think they're heroes.

True, as well, brandishing a firearm makes some intruders run away.  I'd hazard a guess, though, that the same intruder would run just as fast if one came running down the stairs in their underwear waving a nine iron and hooting incoherently.

The one time I have faced an attempted domestic intruder, that's exactly what happened (the dog barking like a fool helped, I'm sure, as well).

Anecdotally, I bet we could muster far, far more stories about people who just appeared and yelled "hey, what are you doing" and prompted flight from a thief than stories about people who used deadly force to stop an assault or invasion by a thief equipped with deadly force.

I'm still saying, cost-benefit analysis, it's not a smart move and those who think otherwise are, in all probability, a great danger to themselves and their households.

[john_proctor]

One last question, and I'm leaving this alone:

How come the language for a "well regulated militia" doesn't imply constitutional provision (if not outright requirement) for a system of mandatory training and registration of gun owners?

[bio_prof_]

True, as well, brandishing a firearm makes some intruders run away.  I'd hazard a guess, though, that the same intruder would run just as fast if one came running down the stairs in their underwear waving a nine iron and hooting incoherently.

I would definitely run away.

[john_proctor]

True, as well, brandishing a firearm makes some intruders run away.  I'd hazard a guess, though, that the same intruder would run just as fast if one came running down the stairs in their underwear waving a nine iron and hooting incoherently.

I would definitely run away.

And well, well you should.  (I am also surgical in my skill with a nine-iron).

[bio_prof_]

Hmmm... maybe, but as I recall, I have a much more detailed and functional knowledge of human anatomy than you do.

Maybe I don't need a nine-iron....

[sikora]

Quote from Phlebas2006:

Jonesey, no no no no no no no no.  O...M...G...  You've got it completely backwards.  The right exists--they're "natural" rights that we're born having, from the Creator.  Governments are instituted among men to secure those rights--whatever rights we're talking about--take it completely away from guns.  Governments and legislators don't "give" you rights--you already have them; we create governments to protect those rights.

Yikes

So by this argument, if we concentrate just of the "right to bear arms" example, the laws of Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and most of the Northern Hemisphere are "unnatural."  But, the conditions in the Sudan, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, much of Eurasia, and other violent places are at least a de facto reflection "natural law."

And so which Creator created these laws?  The creator of the Israelites?  The Muslims?  Christians?  The Chinese?  The Hindu creator? Oh, yeah, only the Judeo-Christian God is real. 

What about my right to religious freedom?  Is that a natural law endowed by my Creator? If so, what if my religion teaches me that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim creator doesn't exist, but that human beings are the product of blood spilled in a cosmic war among Gods?

Are pacifist churches unnatural, or obeying unnatural laws? 

Was Jesus acting unnaturally when he said to Peter, on the night of his arrest, "Put away your sword." And then proceded to heal the man whose ear had been chopped off by the Rock of the Church? 

Obscure, but stil the first dog in space

[crazybatlady]

Wow, folks! What an exciting discussion.

I also am keen to discuss the fact that today the US Supreme Court decided that my uterus is no longer mine. But I own five guns, so don't try to break into my house!

Whoo-hoo!

cbl