Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

I simply answered your question which was, "Do you mean universal right as in that granted by the second amendment to the U.S. constitution? Or are you talking natural rights again?" The question itself pertained to semantics. And I did already address the rocket launcher thing in another post. It is merely a distraction.

Supposedly, serving time is meant to pay their debt, make amends for their actions, if you will. Why wouldn't they have their rights restored after that debt is paid? Again, this is just a distraction.

No offense, but that's a dumb question.

That argument could definitely be made but what does it have to do with the price of fish?

It all depends on the circumstances of each individual case. There is no blanket answer. If someone has the mind of a 5 year old then they should be kept under the supervision of a custodian and would have rights much like those that children have. If someone just has a bad temper then they have all of the rights that anyone else has until they infringe on the rights of another.

 

It's called Godwin's Law and it only pertains when a comparison to Nazis is made that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand in an effort to shut down dialogue. When we're talking about "law-abiding-citizens should have no fear of not being able to buy a gun because of background checks" (your words) then it is quite pertinent since governments throughout history have in fact arbitrarily denied people their rights. I also could have used American slavery, Russian gulags, etc...as examples. Your "Goodwin's law? O_O" comment is just lazy and cheap.

It has to do with the government having ultimate authority to deny anyone their natural rights. Again, we should take our lessons from history where governments have time and time again arbitrarily infringed on free people's rights. Take for example Australia, the mostly white government could deny Aborigines arms while approving arms for whites. Taking Australian history into account, this is not even a stretch. Or you can look to America, where the Natives were denied by law to own firearms while they were being slaughtered and having their ancestral lands stolen. Or we can use India as an example, where the Indians were denied their right to self defense by a bunch of powder-wigged slobs on the other side of the planet.

And again, a number is chosen at random. If you can't come up with a logical argument for that number then why should I take it seriously?

So 11 bullets poses undue risk but 9 bullets does not? I'm hardly convinced. We've already established that restricting ammunition capacity reduces effectiveness and can very easily put an innocent person at risk from an attacker. The whole argument is much ado about nothing. Magazines can be changed in the blink of an eye. Furthermore, most criminals have firearms that hold more than 10 rounds (indeed, most handguns in the US hold more than 10) so limiting law abiding citizens only accomplishes that, limiting law abiding citizens.

It depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? There is no one answer which is why picking an arbitrary number makes no sense whatsoever.

When you stated that we all have the right to life and that we all are born with equal rights. That idea is the cornerstone of natural rights theory. If you're not relying on natural rights theory, then how exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?

Please, can we disregard your previous definition of natural rights? It is nonsensical and just causes confusion. If we are going to discuss apples, let's talk about the round fruit that most people refer to when they say apple, instead of some construction that you invented that has nothing to do with fruit.

You still didn't answer the question. Why do you think that "everyone has the right to life?" How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

I cannot argue that point. There has been many infractions against all of our Rights. All seemingly innocent, but each having impact on the whole. My point is about registration and what, historically, has occurred afterwards: confiscation. It is impossible to merely register just the firearm. The owner has to be registered along with the firearm. That in itself, violates the 5thA and a precursor to violate the 4thA. This is blatant, nowhere near subtle.
IMO, that firepower is deteremined by the size of one's wallet. If wrong is committed by an owner, he must answer for such actions. Many people who commit such crimes as mass shootings have paid for it , or will pay for it, with their lives. We already have laws in place for such events.
What some are appearing to do is hold those not responsible, responsible for the actions of one. This mindset is whipped up by fear mongers, where emotion has taken hold in lieu of actual critical thinking.
It is impossible to legislate sanity. Like those of the true criminal element, these laws would have little effect on them, but have a major impact on those who do follow laws. The criminal element will no more submit to pysch evals than they would adhere to the basic laws of society. Ergo, criminals.

 

And that's fine. Like I said, the argument can be made. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there exists a right to arms.

You think I'm against background checks because I want felons to have guns? Where in the world did you get that from?

That's what people who ask dumb questions say.

It is called punishment. There is no way to punish a criminal that doesn't take away their rights. This is a non-starter.

I'll rephrase. What does this felon tack have to do with whether or not people have the right to arms or whether or not there is such a thing as natural rights?

Now you're running into invasion of privacy and such. You keep taking this conversation further and further off topic.

 

The reference to registering Jews or black people showed the fallacy in your assertion that "law-abiding-citizens should have no fear of not being able to buy a gun because of background checks". Government, any and every government, has, will, and does abuse its power. That's a simple fact.

Not that I've seen. That doesn't mean that the government can't come up with any criteria they like to deny any individual their rights as evidenced by actual governments actually denying human being basic rights based on things as arbitrary as ethnicity.

You don't have to take me seriously, but I'm not the one trying to limit your rights.

Honestly, I just get perturbed because you keep moving away from the actual topic and these posts just keep getting longer and longer. I realize that I'm getting a little short in temper but brevity is a virtue.

That's the thing. You really can't show that the existence of 1-30 round magazine poses more of a risk to the lives of the innocent than 3-10 round magazines. The worst mass shooting in the US was committed with 15-round mags which is pretty standard for a modern handgun. The shooter at Sandy Bridge didn't even fully utilize his 30 round magazines. He was reloading well before the mags were empty.

No.

In a firefight magazine capacity does make a difference. In a massacre of unarmed people, not so much. It isn't a contradiction, it is a difference in circumstances.

Which makes even less sense than a confiscation. It would be like saying that a certain car poses a threat to public safety and then just stopping manufacturing without recalling the millions already out there. It just highlights the incremental way that the gun control lobby operates in this country. They go for whatever they think they can get and then when they get it, they go for me. It never fails.

You haven't established that 30 round mags cause more lives to be lost than 3-10 round mags.

You may think that you're answering the question but you're not. You stated that everyone has the right to life. I assumed that you actually meant everyone, as in every human being. Some humans live under governments that do not recognize a right to life, where humans can be killed for no reason at all. Do you maintain that these people don't have the right to live or would you maintain that their right to life is being denied when they are arbitrarily killed on the whim of some government official? If it's the former then we don't have anything to discuss as our philosophies would be polar opposites without a middle ground. If it is the latter then I don't understand how you can deny that there are things that are known as natural rights, or rights that are inherent and inalienable that belong to all humans regardless of nationality.

As for the Constitution bit, what is and isn't protected by the US Constitution is irrelevant to the topic. That is simply an appeal to authority. It is relevant to what is legal or illegal but it doesn't mean squat when talking about natural rights, other than it was meant to protect some of them from an overbearing government. If you think your rights rely on a piece of paper then you're just one military coup away from having no rights at all. Quite frankly, so far I take your position to be that there is no such thing as rights, but only privileges granted by a governmental body. If you were to strip away all governments and all man-made laws and start fresh tomorrow would you think that there would be anything wrong with you killing me because you didn't like my hair color? If so, why is it wrong or immoral or whatever you want to call it? If not, then again we really don't have anything to discuss as we will never agree.

 

I would venture amusely to say that Mr. Hawkings statement about Nuclear weapons is moot. America developed and then used two nuclear weapons. One at Hiroshima, and the other at Nagasaki to end WWII.
Isn't it funny? While Maobama is attempting to disarm the American people and our military, he allows Iran to continue building nuclear weaponry.

 

I've made my position clear regarding felons so why do you keep asking? I also stated that I understand your position and can see the argument's merits. I don't know what more you want from me on that topic.

I've also made my objections to background checks for private sales clear and it does not rely on your felon angle. It relies on governments proving time and time again that they are willing to trample on the rights of citizens.

 

Well it seems pretty clear regarding nuclear weapons, there is no way that they can be used without infringing on others rights. Nobody should own them, governments included. As for rocket launchers and gunships, they can be used without infringing on the rights of others so I guess the cutoff point is whether or not the weapon can be used in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. What is your cut off line?

 

Actually, no I'm not. For it to be a slippery slope fallacy I would have to maintain that background checks would inevitably lead to some oppressive measures. My position is that given the historical acts committed by governments, it would be imprudent to give them this much power since oppressive measures are a real possibility. I never stated that it was a certainty. That A makes B possible is not a fallacy, especially when history proves such.

Define "reasonable".

Nope. That's a bold face lie perpetuated by the gun control lobby. Restricting federal funding (aka tax dollars) for research on gun control is not prohibiting the research from being conducted. Harvard, Stanford, etc. have the resources and hundreds of thousands of studies have already been done. Furthermore, the gun control lobby has massive amounts of money available to fund the research. They simply want to use my money to do it with.

While we are on the subject though, the National Institute of Justice has stated that your idea of banning the sale and manufacture wouldn't have an impact without a confiscation of high-cap mags already in circulation.

Mainly because it is an unquantifiable measure.

Yes, what's your point? O_O

His gun jammed. Had it not he would have continued on with the massacre so it in fact doesn't show anything.

No you don't. Law abiding citizens don't have access to heroin but criminals have an endless supply. There is no reason to believe that would be any different with high cap mags. Hell, David Gregory managed to smuggle one into the nation's capital not too long ago despite the ban.

 

How do you quantify "saved lives"? Also, if it is shown that slingshots have taken more lives than lives saved then you'd ban slingshots? Baseball bats? Pocket knives? A swimming pool has never saved a single life but many people have drowned in them. Why limit it to weapons?

I'm on the fence. I could make an argument for either side, though I think the one for legalization is based on principles and the argument against leans more towards "just because". I don't know about gunships but you can legally own a rocket launcher. I've never heard of one used in any crime though, have you? Using your criteria, if one single life has been saved by a rocket launcher then you think they should be legal, right? Or do you want to refine your criteria?

 

A couple of things to keep in mind. Universal background checks would only work if there were full gun registration or it would be impossible to ever know if someone had transferred a weapon legally. Registration is easily shown to lead to bans like it did in Chicago. Chicago required registration then quit registering handguns. Of course it is only the law abiding that follow that law. Congress has passed laws making gun registration illegal federally.

A universal background check would require that if you bought your wife a handgun for self protection, you would have to take her down the the local gun store to do a transfer and have a background check or if you wanted to give your collection to one of your kids you would have to transfer each one. I was just in a local gun store and they charged $50 for each transfer.

Metrics are not kept for defensive use of a weapon. The only time they are recorded are when someone is shot. The majority of defensive use of firearms never ends in one being fired. The problem with trying to apply a "science" to justify limiting rights is that you can justify anything based on your bias. Humans can rationalize anything. Just scout out the Brady Campaign to see that.

 

Citizen, subject, whatever; it's all semantics, and whatever state you perceive yourself to be in, bear in mind you're only as 'free' as your government sees fit for its purposes, Bills of Rights and Constitutions notwithstanding. Trust me when I say that, in the event of a domestic crisis, your 'rights' will get suspended in a heartbeat should the government deem it necessary, irresepective of the political leaning of the incumbency.

 

as far as subject/Citizen thing goes, at least the Citizen has the Right to own and carry; not so the subject.
you are absolutely right. That'll be when the war starts. There are those out there, on both sides, who are just crazy enough NOT to care and start this thing going.........that's why I sit back and watch.....I'm strictly a defense kind of guy.

 

I am by no means saying that guns should be outlawed, and when engaging in dialogue around the issue I'm very sympathetic to the notion that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be obstructed in owning firearms. My point was that since the "right" to bear arms isn't universally applied (ie, it's only applied within reason- no rocket launchers) the fact that it is a "right" can't be used as an argument against gun control. I am only for reasonable measures such as licensing, I am against the current measures in America that are mostly obstructive without effectively curbing gun crime (assault weapons ban included) and I'm against the complete criminalisation of firearms that we've seen down here. But you simply can't argue that- while I need a license to drive a car- I should be allowed to go to the store and buy a machine gun.

 

It is only gun lovers without a Cause that complain about not being able to keep and bear Arms in the manner of a "well regulated" militia.