John Stossel on 20/20 ... 10 myths about gun control

Related, but not dependent. As the paper I linked to, and the supreme court itself expressed, the justification clause in no way limits or restricts the operative clause. The operative clause stands without the justification clause and is not limited by the justification clause. The justification clause simply exists to express the reason for the operative clause, not the limits of it.

But of course, if you chose to read either the supreme court rulings on this amendment or the paper I linked to above, you would already know that.

 

I understand that this is your interpretation. Amazing how your interpretation happens to correspond with your preference. Sounds like a Nirvana Fallacy taken to the next step...
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/135-nirvana-fallacy

 

I don't think anyone disputes that SCOTUS has historically ruled that the justification clause is not a limitation.
However, I don't believe that SCOTUS making a ruling on an issue necessarily means the issue is closed - particularly if a push for change is made.

 

Despite that is the definition stated in the federalist papers, and decisions made by SCOTUS, I would say that it is logical. You neglect to see your own fallacy in your statements. Strengthening gun laws will not solve the problem, nor will banning or registering them. The left and the right both have it wrong. It is not guns, or the media, they are nothing more than tools. It is mental illness that is the problem that must be solved and how it is dealt with.

 

That depends on whether you believe criminals obtaining weapons is "the problem".
Given that criminals often obtain firearms through straw purchases, registration would severely impact their ability to get firearms.
After all, if you have a criminal record, you may easily be able to convince a friend of yours that it was "just a misunderstanding" or "a mistake", and that it's unjust for you to be unarmed as a result. That friend might not even need any financial motive to supply you with a firearm.

If your friend knew the weapon would be registered to him, and that he could face charges if it ended up in criminal hands, he'd be far less likely to agree to purchase on your behalf.

That depends on what you believe the effect is that needs to be mitigated.
For example:
- I agree that (if you are talking solely about mass murder) then mental illness is a key issue.

- I'll even agree that mental illness may be a key factor in folks who escalate every confrontation into lethal combat by leaping to the conclusion that every confrontational situation requires the use of lethal tools in the name of self defense.

- Please illustrate how accidental shootings are in any way related to mental illness.

 

Incorrect. Majority of criminals receive their weapons from the black market, ie stolen guns. Private guns sales are also a rarity of how criminals obtain firearms.

Registration leads to confiscation, my right to own a firearm does not require me to register it as if I were some criminal.

Accidental shootings only account for 2% of gun related deaths in America, hardly a massive issue.

Of course a firearm is not needed for every confrontation. If you have one and the confrontation does not escalate, then no one gets hurt. However, if you don't have one and things do escalate then you are screwed. It is insurance for my life, nobody but me pays for it, I don't have an interest rate for it, so no problem with me and none with you. We need a more effective way to deal with hard drugs that are on our streets, also, federalize gun crimes (10 year minimum depending on the offense). Drugs are the reason our suicide rate is the highest in the world, as overdosing qualifies as a suicide. Drugs are the cause of gang warfare, that cause violence in metropolitan areas. Guns in the hands of private citizens however, are not the problem. As you see in Chicago, Detroit, LA, and DC, gun control has not worked, in fact it has made it worse for the law abiding people who reside there.

 

That's an interesting claim that you'll need to back up with a source.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

That's a cute bumper sticker slogan.
Has your car been confiscated? Do you feel like a criminal when you register your car?
If your gun was registered, would it somehow become more constitutional to confiscate it?

Would it be a "massive issue" if a foreign nation killed that many Americans?

Like these guys?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...and-kill-each-other-after-road-rage-incident/

I'm sure every gun owner whose firearms ended up in criminal hands (or whose toddler shot a friend/family member) said the same thing.

That's another claim you'll need to back up with a source.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955

Blatant strawman. There's a world of difference between attempting gun control in a small area with no borders or customs, and inacting a national policy. Other first-world democracies who have implemented gun control are a more reasonable point of comparison.

 

Fail. That link says nothing about how criminals obtain their weapons. Did you think I was going to ask for a source and not look at it?

Seriously, read a book. The Nazis actually relaxed gun laws for their citizens, they just did so selectively and didn't include Jews... much like many American conservatives support the 2A but freak out when a minority is armed.

The law has nothing to do with your religious belief. Basing laws on religious belief is unconstitutional. Even if it wasn't, God did not invent guns and give them to men.

"Time and time again"? I believe you'll find that there are far more first-world democracies that have implemented gun registration and still have firearms than there are countries that have implemented registration and then forcibly taken citizens' firearms.... and these would be countries that don't have a second amendment to prevent confiscation from being enacted.

Wait... Let's replay that one:
1) You say that a bunch of Americans dying is really not a major issue.
2) I ask if it would be a major issue if the method of death were unrelated to your politics.
3) You claim I'm making a strawman (despite your initial statement clearly being a fallacy of relative privation), then go on to make a whole list of actual strawman fallacies.

Hypocrisy much?

In response to your somewhat ignorant question, the more commonly an item is used, the more likely someone is to have an accident using it.
For example: I am significantly less likely to die in a motorcycle accident than someone who actually rides a motorcycle for several hours a day.
In order to determine the comparative lethality of any given activity (including the use of a tool, such as a firearm) it important to consider how many fatalities there are in relation to the frequency and duration of use.

The link you provided leads straight back to this thread...
That being said, I believe the story you're referring to pertains to an armed criminal attacking someone, right? If so, why aren't we discussing how to keep armed psychos from getting firearms in the first place?

I believe I already addressed this issue and demonstrated that you have been hypocritical.

Really, you only look at "intentional homicide"?
I find it interesting that you approve of using wikipedia as a souce (most folks don't).
I find it equally interesting that you were looking at "intentional homicide" (cherry picking), rather than looking at "firearm related death" - since that is what we were discussing.
That being said, even if there is one (very conservative) first-world democracy that has a higher rate of firearm deaths than we do, does that make ours ok? Are we content to be one step removed from last place?

 

It is obvious that I will never convince you of why I want my firearms, and my life left alone. I see that you are beyond ever understanding why I want that without you coming up with a ridiculous claim. You refuse to see of how registration has eventually led to the deaths of people by their own governments. I will not argue with someone who would so blindly give away our freedoms so it would make him feel safer. I will not converse with you anymore, for you are to far gone. Perhaps I can converse with someone who is not too far gone and still sees the freedom of others as valuable. Good day, I wish you all the luck in the world.

 

You make good points through out all your posts, there are several very intelligent points in this post alone. What affects my decision to continue a discussion with individuals is whether they want to argue every single point you are attempting to discuss in some form of counter point or do they see some validity in portions of your post and acknowledge such and continue the discussion on those points. John Stossel presented 10 myths about gun control which argued the case for gun ownership...stick with that... let the antis argue what they want, it's better that way

 

It is obvious that you cannot see beyond your own wants to determine what is better on a societal level. That level of narcissism is not conducive to a rational exchange of ideas.

And you refuse to see how registration has been implemented without leading to the deaths of people by their own governments.

And I feel no need to enlighten someone who would so blindly cling to a status quo that causes so many deaths, just so he can feel safer.

Ditto.

 

yep. stay to the high road Mod Edit ~ Unnecessary

 

dealing with anti-American Americans is like dealing with diarrhea. it only takes once to cover everyone with their crap.
Can we say American Guilt because of being an American?

 

It is of this kind of thinking that I have "Private Property" signs on my property. 2 simple words that you can not confuse but lets you know that you are not welcomed, to include your collective opinion.

"What is better on a societal level" scares the hell out of me when it is you making that decision for others. Then you call someone a narcissist because they are independent? Oh the irony......

 

If you don't want to hear other opinions, what are you doing on a public forum? By all means, stay in your bunker.

You object to the term narcissist? Perhaps you would prefer egocentric?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egocentrism
"egocentric
adjective
1. having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things: an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes.

2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered: an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others."

 

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

It's a pain in the ass, time consuming, and expensive, but at the end of the day it's just a very extensive background check. If you have a clean reacord, you can get one. By no means "near impossible".

And then there's the issue with the cost of legal fully auto weapons. The difference between my AR-15 and a legal M-16 is that the M-16 has full auto. That's it. A fair market value for my AR is around $1,000. A legal M-16 is around $20k. You have to be genuinely wealthy, or REALLY want a legal auto weapon to spend that kind of coin on one.