High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[xbuzzerx]

Step 1: Say thing based off common sense/watercooler logic
Step 2: Expect everyone to agree
Step 3: If they don't agree insult them, call them child and make blanket accusations of ignorance

Repeat as necessary.

[HenryReardon]

No, he's deliberately focusing on pointless semantics to derail the topic. Because that's what trolls do.

Semantics, perhaps. Pointless, no.
Which of the followig statments is more nearly accurate?

Uncle Joe was killed by a gun;
or
Uncle Joe was killed by a man wielding a gun.

The latter of the two statements is accurate; the former is misleading.
Which is what the anti-gun crowd is attempting to accomplish: gain support using misdirection

[Rolyo85]

Semantics, perhaps. Pointless, no.
Which of the followig statments is more nearly accurate?

Uncle Joe was killed by a gun;
or
Uncle Joe was killed by a man wielding a gun.

The latter of the two statements is accurate; the former is misleading.
Which is what the anti-gun crowd is attempting to accomplish: gain support using misdirection

Actually, when the debate is about a particular murder tool, the former is the accurate one, since it focuses on the tool rather than the irrelevant identity of the perpetuator.

But it was endearing to watch you try to be condescending while having a "gotcha" grade school linguistic moment...

[HenryReardon]

Actually, when the debate is about a particular murder tool, the former is the accurate one, since it focuses on the tool rather than the irrelevant identity of the perpetuator.

...

You still don't get it or are you simply dissembling? The first statement is never accurate, and the debate, such as it is, is being deliberately misdirected toward the tool rather than the perpetrator, the identity and motives of whom are never irrelevant. Never.

[Benvolio]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

[Rolyo85]

You guys INSIST on lowering the conversation to this level of argument? Seriously?

Fine, have it your way. Another topic successfully murdered with trolling.

[Telstra]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

which category did this post fall under?
link below:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[Rolyo85]

which category did this post fall under?
link below:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

After careful consideration, I think it's the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Could also be the "fallacy" fallacy.

Though ultimately, the only thing those guys are truly capable of, are straw men.

[xbuzzerx]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

Aside from the other logical problems with this statement that others have drawn attention to, you are capable of a whole level of mass killing with firearms that you are not capable of with a knife or bat.

By your same reasoning that nothing is wrong with the weapons, only the person who uses them, why can't I have a nuke?

I REALLY do want one.

[tigerfan482]

Ooh, nice way to switch in midstream, from civilian sources to the military.

Way to try and make a point and then totally ignore you tried to make it when it is refuted.

Let me just remind you of what you said:

Very few weapons from the US get to those countries -- they get far more from each others' militaries, which leak guns like a gum machine 'leaks' gumballs.

So yes, my point was completely relevant to the topic YOU brought up.

The Second Amendment doesn't talk about "precision guided missiles or NBC weapons".

It also doesn't talk about assault rifles. Or handguns. Or muskets. Or shotguns. It talks about "arms" which everything above, including precision guided missiles and NBC weapons, falls under.

Of course not -- they know they can't go there overnight, which is why they stir up emotions every chance they get in order to try to pass laws which have nothing much to do with the issue they're crying over but a lot to do with making it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, sir. To argue that someone is in favor of something when they haven't actually said or done anything to support that is an argument of convenience and doesn't hold any water. Also, the framers of the Constitution made no mention of it being super simple to obtain the arms that people have a right to bear. On the contrary, they actually explicitly stated that the militia holding those arms should be "well regulated" which, at least in my mind, means that regulations are fair game. As long as the right isn't being denied (which we determined earlier no one has tried to do), then there is no problem.

[bankside]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

which category did this post fall under?
link below:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

It's actually "Red Herring" presented in the form of "Slippery Slope."

[bankside]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Here is why comparing the US to those 'third world' countries is legitimate: what the US shares with them and not with Europe et al is a culture that believes that violence is a legitimate avenue to decision-making.

[HenryReardon]

All the murderers will have to be released from prison. They didn't kill anyone. The guns, knives, ball bats. Did it.

Makes perfect sense, given that certain elements in society have long been pushing the agenda that people aren't responsible for their actions. Gotta blame it on something, so enter guns.

[Benvolio]

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

[tigerfan482]

Semantics, perhaps. Pointless, no.
Which of the followig statments is more nearly accurate?

Uncle Joe was killed by a gun;
or
Uncle Joe was killed by a man wielding a gun.

The latter of the two statements is accurate; the former is misleading.
Which is what the anti-gun crowd is attempting to accomplish: gain support using misdirection

Both statements are accurate. Uncle Joe died from a bullet wound which was caused by a man firing a gun. Without the man, the gun most likely would not have caused the bullet wound and without the gun, the man most likely would not have caused the bullet wound. They're two dependent parts of the same issue. Without people using them, guns won't shoot people. However, without guns, people also will not shoot people.

[Rolyo85]

Makes perfect sense, given that certain elements in society have long been pushing the agenda that people aren't responsible for their actions. Gotta blame it on something, so enter guns.

Yeah, nobody here has said this. It's entirely in your head, and you're responsible for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

Again - you're applying a proposition nobody has made. It's in your head. You're trying to reduce a complex concept into a shallow idiotic fallacy, so that you can make it easy to rebuff. We call that straw man.

[HenryReardon]

. Without people using them, guns won't shoot people. However, without guns, people also will not shoot people.

That may well be, but if a maniac is determined to dispatch a fellow human being, he or she will find a way.

[andysayshi]

Correct, but without a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine, he will not be so capable of killing 20 school children in less than 60 seconds, as happened at Sandy Hook.

[Benvolio]

So, you have stopped arguing that guns kill people, including your a Uncle Joe, so this thread can be closed. I hope he is feeling better now that we have resurrected him.

[Rolyo85]

That may well be, but if a maniac is determined to dispatch a fellow human being, he or she will find a way.

And that way is way more likely to be 100% less efficient than shooting them with a gun, leaving a 100% higher chance for survival. For reference - the Chinese guy who attacked kids with a knife and managed to heroically kill... not a single one. How many of the Sandy Hook kids would be alive now if Lanza only had a knife?

- - - Updated - - -

So, you have stopped arguing that guns kill people, including your a Uncle Joe, so this thread can be closed. I hope he is feeling better now that we have resurrected him.

Are you seriously ABSOLUTELY incapable of contributing to any discussion, or do you just not want to?

[xbuzzerx]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Some do. Namely the ones raised in a heavily gun promoting culture, usually but not always either military or smalltown/hunting backgrounds, and a hefty dose of American myth think that individuals can (and perhaps SHOULD) solve everything themselves, at the point of a gun if necessary.

Actually, it is known as " reductio ad absurdum". It is not a fallacy, it is a logical technique of showing the absurdity of a proposition by applying it.

And I threw it right back at you in that if we cannot control weapons because what the weapons can do to others is not the weapon's fault but the individual, then why can't I have a nuke?

[HenryReardon]

. How many of the Sandy Hook kids would be alive now if Lanza only had a knife?

[
?

How many of them would be alive now if one or more of the teachers had been armed?

[Benvolio]

Hey, Dorner is an Obama fan. Don't blame the right for his gun culture. We don't have a gun culture. We simply are not willing to surrender our Constitutional rights, and this is one.

[tigerfan482]

How many of them would be alive now if one or more of the teachers had been armed?

Although impossible to actually know, I'd say not very many more. There may even be a few more dead. I would also say there'd be one or more additional teachers dead since it is very likely that the teachers would be the first shot by the gunman had the practice been to arm teachers. That is why you see reports of armed police officers and soldiers that are killed. People with guns don't deter people like Adam Lanza who leave the house in the morning with guns intending to die. Whether they kill 10 people or 100 people doesn't matter to them and they damn sure aren't afraid of being shot by someone who might have a gun.

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

[xbuzzerx]

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

... yeah, but... that wouldn't have stopped him from getting screwdrivers and croquet mallets.

[maxpowr9]

I will say definitively that a lot more kids would be alive had Adam Lanza not had access to guns.

Culpability rested with the mother and her failure to secure her guns or even having firearms in the house with an unstable person. She got her unfortunate justice.

[tigerfan482]

Culpability rested with the mother and her failure to secure her guns or even having firearms in the house with an unstable person. She got her unfortunate justice.

Which is why I'd rather the government take big strides towards limiting what guns can be sold and owned as well as extensive background checks of people buying guns. I don't want to put my faith in the fact that every idiot out there that can easily obtain a gun properly stores it and keeps it away from loonies. While you or I may have seen Adam Lanza as a nut job waiting to do something stupid, he was mommy's little angel who can solve his problems by going to the gun range to let it all out.

[HenryReardon]

Gun culture isn't a constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned are they part of a militia? Because the second amendment was originally about militias.

The term 'gun culture' is a total liberal fantasy.

The second amendment is about being able to protect oneself and one's family, especially from tyrants, and it's particularly important now that we have a certified tyrant residing at 1600 Pennsylania Avenue.

[tigerfan482]

The term 'gun culture' is a total liberal fantasy.

The second amendment is about being able to protect oneself and one's family, especially from tyrants, and it's particularly important now that we have a certified tyrant residing at 1600 Pennsylania Avenue.

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

[mightbe]

Reardon:

I'll concede that in getting Obama we have a man that can actually put a bloated military to use (it was scary enough with the incompetent twat that preceded him), but he's no tyrant. Half of what he does is Bush revisited--but just because Bush committed atrocities does not really make him a tyrant either. Just an abuser and manipulator. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with personal protection. It had everything to do with the possibility of staging a recapturing the country by using a well-regulated militia in the late 1700s and early 1800s. It has not really been relevant after that time. We only know when it became irrelevant in hindsight.

Gun culture didn't even exist until the 1970s. That was when the NRA turned from being the good neighborly people who taught you how to shoot a gun for sport to the advocacy of removing all restrictions on firepower. There have always been enthusiasts, but when you get to the point that the enthused is now the fanatic, a line should have been crossed. Unfortunately, we did not even realize a line had to be drawn until it was too late. Now that people have crossed where the line should have been, they won't give it up. It was never theirs for the taking, but the 1980s policies didn't even consider the possibility of stopping things where they should've been.

It's a fantasy only in the sense that what you think we consider it is a fantasy. It's not a gun-centric culture. It's a gun-surrounded culture.

This is where I take a quasi-utilitarian stance: People are smart. The public is stupid. It's panicky, impulsive, irresponsible, temperamental, illogical and dangerous. Better to treat people like the public. Better safe than sorry.

[xbuzzerx]

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

They do very much think that and I'd say that's one of the core beliefs of the gun culture that he claims is mythical.

[tigerfan482]

They do very much think that and I'd say that's one of the core beliefs of the gun culture that he claims is mythical.

Well I would have them talk to some people in Waco or Ruby Ridge. The government was overthrown there, right?

[Kulindahr]

Ideology is not fact. Deal with it. Just because you believe in rights being intrinsic, doesn't make it so. And, frankly, it's irrelevant to reality either way.

Rights are intrinsic -- and that is a fact, one resting on the fact that each person owns himself. That IS reality, regardless of all the ideologues who have other notions.

[Kulindahr]

It didn't talk about them at all because they didn't exist yet in 1776.

But the concept of the right to individual arms to ensure government could never become tyrannical would naturally need to expand as the machinery of war advanced so that citizens always had commensurate power to stop a government from oppressing them.

So if we accept the 2nd Amendment as rigidly as you say we must as a universal, unquestionable natural human right, I want my nuke. It's the only want to ensure the government can't oppress me, I can't take on the army with a handgun.

There is no personal right to a nuke, any more than there is to a tank. That's all part of the term "militia".

[Kulindahr]

Government is part of the people. If the people wanted guns, they would have made the government change the laws so we could have them. We don't want them. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. Unfortunately, your half of the US is not an advanced culture.

And your entire stance is violently hypocritical, in case you aren't aware of it.

There's no hypocrisy at all, just reality.

You, OTOH, are basing your position on lies, such as that in the middle of your second line.

[tigerfan482]

There is no personal right to a nuke, any more than there is to a tank. That's all part of the term "militia".

So are firearms, but you seem to advocate people having a personal right to them. They are all classified as arms and they are all for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. How can you argue against two but argue for the other?

[Kulindahr]

More people have died by guns in the U.S. than in all the wars we have fought.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-killed-guns/

Actually most of the deaths by firearms in the US have been part of a war, the war of a government on its own people. Think Prohibition and the falsely named "War on Drugs", which were and are systems whereby government creates and then subsidies violence against its own citizens.

[tigerfan482]

Actually most of the deaths by firearms in the US have been part of a war, the war of a government on its own people. Think Prohibition and the falsely named "War on Drugs", which were and are systems whereby government creates and then subsidies violence against its own citizens.

Anything to blame the government, right? So now the line is "Guns don't kill people and people don't kill people. The government kills people by having people kill people with guns." I'd say most of the deaths by firearms have been part of people buying guns and shooting each other. It's that simple.

[bankside]

Some do. Namely the ones raised in a heavily gun promoting culture, usually but not always either military or smalltown/hunting backgrounds, and a hefty dose of American myth think that individuals can (and perhaps SHOULD) solve everything themselves, at the point of a gun if necessary.

Yes, this is a good point, and I concede it- in direct measure to the degree to which other Americans can contain the gun nuts. If they're still setting the terms of the debate and turning the Second Amendment into the ideological equivalent of "LALALALLALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in a way that still affords them political legitimacy, then I don't know what else to say. Immigrate? It's not too hard to come to Canada, and we have enough natural gas that winter won't matter for centuries. A glass of port by the fire is a great thing.

At least clearly a portion believes in the bullshit of "pistols at dawn" as though that somehow legitimised their whims. And that is a cancer to be excised.

Rights are intrinsic -- and that is a fact, one resting on the fact that each person owns himself. That IS reality, regardless of all the ideologues who have other notions.

Rights are intrinsic, indeed they are. In claiming my right of self defence, I call for general disarmament. My life, liberty and happiness are best served by overall disarmament, in my sovereign, self-owning judgment, with controlled exceptions for farm use and sport/skill shooting.

Your approach is every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. It is true that my disarmament approach, if I impose it on you, may leave you undefended in a critical moment, and you could die at the hands of someone you would have otherwise been able to defend yourself against.

But your approach, to live in an every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself society, also imposes risks on me that I am equally unwilling to accept. You yourself purport to be a responsible gun owner, yet you've had guns stolen from you. Your approach leaves me at risk of being shot by a gun stolen from you; a risk I would not have had to face if the gun had never been manufactured, never left in a triple-locked box that was obviously not secure enough to prevent the theft, and then never trained on my innocent face when I'm sitting in my back yard enjoying the long days of summer with a beer and a barbecue. I don't have to be concerned about a gun being stolen from you again if you don't have it in the first place.

If I were a tyrant, I'd just have your guns confiscated so I can enjoy the back yard without thinking about it. But as a reasonable man, I'm willing to let the evidence decide. Everything I know about the prevalence of privately held guns shows me that those communities are more dangerous - in particular, to me, and in particular, by undermining my life, liberty and happiness. But if there is actually an empirical reason to believe I'd be safer under your approach to exercising the right to self defence, I will learn to shoot, and buy a gun, and sit nervously in my back yard, flipping burgers with one hand and keeping a wary eye on my neighbours with the other…waiting...like Bond in Scaramanga's basement. It sounds like a shitty way to spend the summer to be honest, glaring at the fence and waiting to see who pops over. But maybe it is safer than my disarmament approach. I don't believe you can meet that standard, but you're welcome to try.

[Kulindahr]

So yes, my point was completely relevant to the topic YOU brought up.

I didn't bring up a topic, I commented on a post that asserted that a great volume of guns used in crimes in many other countries come from the US, the implication being from civilian sources. You twisted it to military sales.

It also doesn't talk about assault rifles. Or handguns. Or muskets. Or shotguns. It talks about "arms" which everything above, including precision guided missiles and NBC weapons, falls under.

It does talk about all of those -- only ignorance claims otherwise. You can't pull a word out of context and make it mean something you choose; you have to work with the meaning as it was written. The phrase "keep and bear arms", at the time it was penned, referred to the personal arms a common soldier would be expected to carry -- long gun, sidearm, perhaps knife. That was integral to the concept of militia, which does provide for citizens having the other sort of weapons you mention -- but those are not being discussed in the amendment, which is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to organize a proper militia, which would in fact have the right to have those other weapons.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, sir. To argue that someone is in favor of something when they haven't actually said or done anything to support that is an argument of convenience and doesn't hold any water. Also, the framers of the Constitution made no mention of it being super simple to obtain the arms that people have a right to bear. On the contrary, they actually explicitly stated that the militia holding those arms should be "well regulated" which, at least in my mind, means that regulations are fair game. As long as the right isn't being denied (which we determined earlier no one has tried to do), then there is no problem.

When the end of the slope is the stated goal of the people these politicians call on for support, there's nothing slippery about it (just about the politicians). Your position is that just because someone says he's going downstairs, the fact that he only takes the first step means he really doesn't mean what he says.

As for your interpretation of "well regulated", that's the sort of ignorance which has this debate floundering before the starting line. Read George Washington's comments on the subject, and you'll learn that it has nothing to do with "regulations", it has to do with being supplied with the proper weapons, being trained to use them well, having unit discipline including paying heed to their officers, not fearing to engage the enemy and standing fast when so engaged, maintaining good order and discipline when retreating, and more.

[Kulindahr]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Interestingly, a critical aspect of a well-regulated militia is knowing when NOT to engage in violence, as random violence is a matter of lack of good order and discipline. As I keep saying, one approach to a solution is for Congress to assert its Article I authority to provide discipline to the militia. That doesn't allow Congress to take away personal arms, but it does authorize requirements of training, safety (including storage), perhaps even periodic examinations as to proficiency and safety.

So, for example, all weapons in a household not actually being "borne" (carried or immediately available for use) could be required to be locked up securely, so individuals such as the recent school shooter can't just walk off with someone's unsecured weapons -- or if he could, then the person who failed to secure those weapons properly would be liable, not under civil law, but under provisions for proper discipline in the militia. In that case, the shooter's sloppy (not well-regulated) mother would be facing disciplinary action under militia laws, most likely in the form of fines and public rebuke on top of restitution to those harmed by that negligence.

For my part, any repeat breach of the proper discipline of the militia would mean being drummed out and, having been stripped of the status of a member of the militia, being forbidden to be in possession of not merely firearms but anything that could be considered a personal weapon for military purposes.

Hopefully, such discipline would instill in all households the same deep sense of responsibility that exists among the vast majority of our millions of gun owners.

[Kulindahr]

Chris Dorner is evidence as to why gun culture is so wrong and dangerous. The right wingers here are incapable of seeing of what danger their views pose to the public. They'll continue to resort to logical fallacies and such.

Then are you willing to concede that medical malpractice indicates that organized medicine is wrong and dangerous?


BTW, are you even aware of why he's doing what he's doing?

[tigerfan482]

I didn't bring up a topic, I commented on a post that asserted that a great volume of guns used in crimes in many other countries come from the US, the implication being from civilian sources. You twisted it to military sales.

So I'm going to quote you again since you obviously didn't remember what you said.

Very few weapons from the US get to those countries -- they get far more from each others' militaries, which leak guns like a gum machine 'leaks' gumballs.

Seems like you did mention military there. My point still accurately stands. The US is the largest exporter of firearms in the world, both in the military and civilian sectors. It is lunacy to think that many of those civilian guns do not go to civilians in other countries and that many of those military guns do not wind up in civilian hands. We are the largest contributor to the problem.

It does talk about all of those -- only ignorance claims otherwise. You can't pull a word out of context and make it mean something you choose; you have to work with the meaning as it was written. The phrase "keep and bear arms", at the time it was penned, referred to the personal arms a common soldier would be expected to carry -- long gun, sidearm, perhaps knife. That was integral to the concept of militia, which does provide for citizens having the other sort of weapons you mention -- but those are not being discussed in the amendment, which is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to organize a proper militia, which would in fact have the right to have those other weapons.

If you're going down that route, then it excludes all of today's modern firearms and applies on to muzzle loaded muskets and sidearms. Also, since there wasn't a standing army when the Constitution was written, one could argue that a) we cannot have a standing military or b) the standing military satisfies the requirement for a well-regulated militia and thus no personal firearm ownership is needed. The right of all arms is being addressed by the amendment, which is why no specific arms were mentioned. And that right is dictated by the need for a well-regulated militia. If the need for a well-regulated militia is no longer there, then that right is no longer needed. That is the whole purpose in adding the first half of the second amendment.

When the end of the slope is the stated goal of the people these politicians call on for support, there's nothing slippery about it (just about the politicians). Your position is that just because someone says he's going downstairs, the fact that he only takes the first step means he really doesn't mean what he says.

Again, can you name a politician that has advocated for or introduced legislation to take away all firearms? You're arguing a position that no politician has taken. Yes, if you want to pass legislation, you're going to get support for that legislation from anyone who is willing to give it. That doesn't mean you are accepting their whole platform as your own. There is a large cross-section of people who support better regulations for firearms and they represent a wide range of views. You're choosing the most extreme view and saying that any action taken at all will lead to that end result. That is a slippery slope and it is a logical fallacy.

As for your interpretation of "well regulated", that's the sort of ignorance which has this debate floundering before the starting line. Read George Washington's comments on the subject, and you'll learn that it has nothing to do with "regulations", it has to do with being supplied with the proper weapons, being trained to use them well, having unit discipline including paying heed to their officers, not fearing to engage the enemy and standing fast when so engaged, maintaining good order and discipline when retreating, and more.

George Washington didn't write the Constitution. There have been MANY literary works written in regards to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, some in favor and some opposed. The Supreme Court has ruled (and obviously taken well-regulated to mean) that there can be restrictions on firearm sales and regulations put on their use and their possession. In fact, other than straight up across-the-board bans, they have upheld almost every regulation passed, including the previous ban on assault rifles both federally and in various states.

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit. Dorner is a disturbed big gun fanatic ex-military guy who was self centered and narcissist. Jeez... that sounds quite familiar. Please READ into Dorner before making silly assumptions. Believe me, Dorner is someone I know well now even if I have never met the guy (thanks to endless local coverage)... I've also read his entire manifesto. He's a disturbed psycho.

Gun culture isn't a constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned are they part of a militia? Because the second amendment was originally about militias.

No, the Second was about THE PEOPLE, just like all the rest of the amendments.

And Dorner is part of the militia, just as are you and I -- and as are the corrupt police he's fighting against via last resort . . . and arguably in this instance he's the more "well regulated" of the situation.

[Kulindahr]

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

Just read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

[Kulindahr]

So are firearms, but you seem to advocate people having a personal right to them. They are all classified as arms and they are all for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. How can you argue against two but argue for the other?

"Arms" is not a term you can just take and define as you wish apart from the context. "Keep and bear arms" defines, by its common use at the time, the meaning of the term "arms", which was the personal weapons of the common soldier. Now, if you can show me that the common soldier in, say, NATO, carries a nuke around as standard weaponry, then I'll concede your claim. But as it is, you're arbitrarily redefining the terms of the Second Amendment -- which is a lawyer's trick whereby anything at all can be made to mean whatever you wish.

[tigerfan482]

BTW, are you even aware of why he's doing what he's doing?

I am aware of why he says he is doing it. What bearing does that have on anything and does it make it right? Should the guy be able to go out and shoot people using 30+ guns he has accumulated because he got fired and felt it wasn't right? Possessing that many firearms does need to be illegal. The Second Amendment does not guarantee every person they can be their own militia. You should be able to possess a handgun for self defense, a rifle for big game hunting, and a shotgun for small game hunting and that's it. I'd happily support that balance between allowing people to bear arms while regulating the "militia."

[tigerfan482]

Just read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Again, those are not the Constitution. None of these works cited were in any way codified into the governing of our nation. They were the opinions of individuals at the time.

[tigerfan482]

"Arms" is not a term you can just take and define as you wish apart from the context. "Keep and bear arms" defines, by its common use at the time, the meaning of the term "arms", which was the personal weapons of the common soldier. Now, if you can show me that the common soldier in, say, NATO, carries a nuke around as standard weaponry, then I'll concede your claim. But as it is, you're arbitrarily redefining the terms of the Second Amendment -- which is a lawyer's trick whereby anything at all can be made to mean whatever you wish.

Well then arms is not a term you can modify to mean today's modern weaponry. If you're going to take arms into the context of the period, then they were obviously referring to muzzle loaded, black powder firearms. They don't encompass semi-automatic weapons. They don't include pump action shotguns. They don't include high capacity magazines. They don't include laser/optical sights. None of that is included in the Second Amendment so all of that should be illegal. It's an arbitrary redefining of the terms of the Second Amendment which is a gun nuts trick whereby they can justify having whatever firearms they want while excluding anything that may weaken their "firearms uninhibited for everyone" mantra.

[Kulindahr]

Yes, this is a good point, and I concede it- in direct measure to the degree to which other Americans can contain the gun nuts. If they're still setting the terms of the debate and turning the Second Amendment into the ideological equivalent of "LALALALLALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in a way that still affords them political legitimacy, then I don't know what else to say. Immigrate? It's not too hard to come to Canada, and we have enough natural gas that winter won't matter for centuries. A glass of port by the fire is a great thing.

At least clearly a portion believes in the bullshit of "pistols at dawn" as though that somehow legitimised their whims. And that is a cancer to be excised.



Rights are intrinsic, indeed they are. In claiming my right of self defence, I call for general disarmament. My life, liberty and happiness are best served by overall disarmament, in my sovereign, self-owning judgment, with controlled exceptions for farm use and sport/skill shooting.

Your approach is every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. It is true that my disarmament approach, if I impose it on you, may leave you undefended in a critical moment, and you could die at the hands of someone you would have otherwise been able to defend yourself against.

But your approach, to live in an every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself society, also imposes risks on me that I am equally unwilling to accept. You yourself purport to be a responsible gun owner, yet you've had guns stolen from you. Your approach leaves me at risk of being shot by a gun stolen from you; a risk I would not have had to face if the gun had never been manufactured, never left in a triple-locked box that was obviously not secure enough to prevent the theft, and then never trained on my innocent face when I'm sitting in my back yard enjoying the long days of summer with a beer and a barbecue. I don't have to be concerned about a gun being stolen from you again if you don't have it in the first place.

If I were a tyrant, I'd just have your guns confiscated so I can enjoy the back yard without thinking about it. But as a reasonable man, I'm willing to let the evidence decide. Everything I know about the prevalence of privately held guns shows me that those communities are more dangerous - in particular, to me, and in particular, by undermining my life, liberty and happiness. But if there is actually an empirical reason to believe I'd be safer under your approach to exercising the right to self defence, I will learn to shoot, and buy a gun, and sit nervously in my back yard, flipping burgers with one hand and keeping a wary eye on my neighbours with the other…waiting...like Bond in Scaramanga's basement. It sounds like a shitty way to spend the summer to be honest, glaring at the fence and waiting to see who pops over. But maybe it is safer than my disarmament approach. I don't believe you can meet that standard, but you're welcome to try.

This is so far out in fantasy land I'm not even going to try to reach for an answer. I'll just make one point: you just demonstrated that the one with the terrible fear of his neighbor is YOU.