Self defense.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Logician0311, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Wait, so you allow customers to pay you in cash "in full view of anyone who happense to be in the store at the time" and go out of your way to "just look like a customer in line", so that "bad guys" will not know there is a higher risk of attempting to "relieve you of that money by following you to the parking lot"?
    That seems to be border-line inviting people to try something, increasing the likelihood of an incident...

    Nonetheless, your specific circumstances are not typical of the average member of society, and are therefore irrelevent in discussion of a societal issue.
     
  2. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    But there are multiple ways of interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    For example, there are those who accept the way the founders defined "well regulated militia", and then there's the contemporary gun lobby which ignores anything that isn't profitable for their corporate sponsors.
     
  3. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, you're ignoring several key factors:
    1) reducing accidental shootings is only one facet of what a reasonable gun control program (not a ridiculous one like gun banning) would accomplish. A dramatic reduction in intentional shooting deaths would also occur.
    2) The stats related to violent crime are skewed, as illustrated in that article, by the fact that a number of accidental shootings are misclassified as violent crimes (generally homicide). The corresponding reduction in homicide stats would further reduce the odds of the average citizen facing the single violent crime you're worried about.
     
  4. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Please explain why it is valid to list individual (subjective) cases of self-defense and claim that they are typical, but not valid to provide individual cases of clear misreporting and claim there is a tendancy for this to occur...

    If Sean Hannity could clearly provide unarguable documented evidence of his point of view (as the article I provided did) when critiquing a democrat, it wouldn't be a matter of "blind trust".

    Saying that nothing the NYT says can be true simply because their motive is questionable is a form of ad hominem logical fallacy known as an "appeal to motive".
     
  5. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there are not really multiple interpretations:

    "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823


    And "well regulated militia" is very well defined by the founders of the nation. Its basically every able bodied man.

    But if you want a more modern interpretation,

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

    Page 22, Section 2. a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at othertimes left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]hemilitia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).​

    In the gun control subject, you started out with good arguements, but over the months have been left on pretty weak ground. You are now grasping for "multiple interpretations of the Constitution" in an attempt to find some way to back up your position. Is it time to maybe admit you need to adjust your position on gun control?
     
  6. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it amusing that you say we should look at the original intent of the founders, then provide a modern interpretation of their words...
    I find it equally amusing that you refuse to acknowledge that the Militia Act of 1792 written by the founders provides a very clear example of what a "well regulated militia" meant to them, and it entails a lot more than just "give every able bodied man a gun".
     
  7. Shooterman

    Shooterman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. There is but one way to interpret the Constitution and that is as the Founders wrote it, hashed it out in Congress ( Constitutional Convention ) State Ratification Conventions, ( where the true battles were ) and what was accepted by the people almost to a man.

    Please explain in some fashion that every pro firearm member of this fora hasn't debunked probably a thousand times, as to the correct terminology of 'well regulated'. One caveat is to use the language of the time it was written and not the meaning of the words as used today. One other caveat. Keep in mind the Bill of Rights were declaratory and restrictive of the federal government.
     
  8. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok. In order to ensure that I'm using "the language of the time it was written and not the meaning of the words as used today", please see the below, which was documented by the same founders who brought you the BoR... I believe this adheres to the caveats you've outlined. :)

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
     
  9. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is never a good idea to make public policy based on individual examples because a limited number of individual cases is not representative and prone to abuse for political purposes. On the banner side, they like to use a shooting such as Sandy Hook and hope the sympathy it generates so overwhelms the thought process, the data, and the contrary individual events (armed people who stop a mass shooting) that they can get their gun ban agenda passed.

    It would be just as wrong for the pro-gun side to use the case of a mother who used a handgun to defend her children from a vicious criminal is evidence that all people should be required to carry a handgun.

    ***********

    Rejection due to an "appeal to motive" is absolutely valid when based on extensive past performance.

    Hannity has shown over the years that he is driven strictly by politics, not the truth or the evidence. Sometimes Hannity is correct but it is not because he examined the evidence or has a solid philosophical foundation, but because the politics just happened to also be correct. At this point, Hannity is not worth even considering. For example, Hannity opposed the nuclear option in the Senate, but if the R's win the Senate in 2015 and proposae the nuclear option, then Hannity would support it just because its the R's and not the D's.

    The NYT is the same as Hannity, driven by politics not data.

    Lie enough times, cry "wolf!" enough times, and people justifiably stop listening.
     
  10. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you did not read what I wrote. Heller repeated previous writings including the Federalist Papers.

    And surprise, surprise, you have not read the Milita Act of 1792. This is what it says:

    "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ....."

    Every man also had to be armed for war.

    So, it very much says "every able bodied man a gun".
     
  11. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    :roflol: I haven't read the Militia Act of 1792?!
    Seems like you're ignoring the bulk of it...
    Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

    Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

    Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.

    Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court martial before whom the same shall be assessed, to the marshal of the district, in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies; and also the supervisor of the revenue of the same district, who shall record the said certificate in a book to be kept for that purpose. The said marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent, which costs and manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the state, in which the same shall be, in other cases of distress; and where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the marshal of the district or his deputy may commit such delinquent to gaol, during the term, for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States, may be committed.

    Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the supervisor of the revenue, in the district in which they are collected, within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum, as a compensation for their trouble; and in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any court of the United States, of the district, in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance therefor, to be sued for, prosecuted and recovered, in the name of the supervisor of the district, with interest and costs.

    Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several districts and deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs, and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.

    Please illustrate how this level of regulation applies to the "militia" of today.
     
  12. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    First of all, I need to clarify that I - like you - am rabidly opposed to a gun ban. Banning guns is not fixing the problem, it's a knee-jerk reaction that equates to giving up on finding a fix.

    That being said, valid documented facts that illustrate systemic issues are still valid documented facts irregardless of the motive of the person or organization raising them. A logical fallacy such as "appeal to motive" - by the very nature of being a logical fallacy - is a never valid .
     
  13. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, you ignore the heart of the matter, that the act defines the militia as all able bodied men, and all men in the militia must be armed for war.

    Second, the Militia Act of 1792 creates a formal state militia structure that can be used for national defense by the President. Other than having anecdotal value in defining the militia as all able bodied men, it has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment or the right to bear arms. The Act does not restrict or enable the ability of any individual to own a firearm.

    Third, being able to cut-and-paste has no bearing on understanding (or even indicating you have actually read the item)
     
  14. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    First, saying that all able bodied men are part of the militia does not make them "well regulated" by any definition.

    Second, that formal structure - provided by the founding fathers - clearly illustrates what they meant by "well regulated" and therefore directly applies to the 2A.

    Third, cherry picking convenient words of the founding fathers, rather than their clear intent as defined by the legislation they implemented, is intellectually dishonest.
     
  15. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bull. If you have the time to read and evaluate every item published, and to treat all sources as equal independent of past performance in the hopes that the leopard has changed its spots, then good for you. All sources are not equally honest or diligent, and some sources have proven themselves totally untrustworthy. The NYT is one.

    Remember, you presented a NYT article which referenced an unpublished NYT review of newspaper articles which - so the NYT claimed - showed accidental shootings were mistakenly reported as homicides. First, referencing your own unpublished work is called drinking your own bath water in the scholarly publishing world and is generally unacceptable and not publishable in peer reviewed journals. Second, even if the NYT is correct and accidental shootings are double, they are still a statistical anomaly.

    Your reference just reinforces the reputation of the NYT as a biased and weak source.
     
  16. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Act is independent of the 2nd Amendment. It created a structure to allow the President to call up an army for immdeiate national defense in light of the ban on a permanent standing national army. It was not intended to elaborate on any part of the 2nd Amendment.

    You once again use the phrase "intellectually dishonest". That typically means you are out of substantive comments and are stuck.
     
  17. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Please illustrate why you believe the 2A directly references the militia.

    You clearly have no idea what "intellectually dishonest" means.
    The fact that you cherry pick has no bearing on the sustantive comments at my disposal, but does illustrate that you may never have had any to begin with.
     
  18. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Bull.
    When a source presents facts that cannot be argued (ie: documented examples), saying those examples are invalid simply because of the source that provided them is a fallacy.
    That being said, I understand your desire to dismiss any reference to a fact that challenges your preconceived notions.
     
  19. Shooterman

    Shooterman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like that. Without going through all the whereas and whatfors and what may bes, I ask quite sincerely asks exactly where it states only militias can carry keep and bear arms.

    May I also point out I am not exactly sure how the Dick Act of 1903 affected the Militia Act of 1792.
     
  20. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that the first 3 sections of the Militia Act related to Presidential authority, however the Act has far more than 3 sections and the rest deal with the structure and training that made up a "well regulated militia". As such, it is directly relevent to the "well regulated militia" as mentioned in the 2A.

    You once again are making an unfounded assertion of what "intellectually dishonest" actually means. That typically means you have no response to defend the behavior I've called out as dishonest.
     
  21. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair question.
    "The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."​
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

    "For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."​
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

    Similarly, I'm not exactly sure how any act written in the 20th century might be considered representative of the original intent.
     
  22. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't "allow" it, that's how things are done in my line of work. For me to insist on being treated differently would cost me business.

    So what? Every single person, except perhaps homeless bums, does something, at some point in time, that might put them on the radar of a bad guy. While I acknowledge my circumstances, while not unique, are certainly not universal, the fact is most people, from time to time, do something that could make them a target. They are entitled to protect themselves, as well.

    You, my friend, do not have the right to take away the tools I need to defend myself. But, rest easy, unless you represent a clear and present danger to myself or someone else, you have nothing to fear from my weapon. You might have even been in the same place at the same time as me, and I didn't use it on you. In fact, there's only been one situation that I even thought I might have to use it, but that resolved itself without issue.

    So, relax. And stop trying to disarm normal people, who want a tool in case it's needed, but really hope it never will be.
     
  23. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Your somewhat condescending presumption is that I don't believe anyone should have a firearm - that I believe guns should be banned... A faulty presumption on your part.

    I have no problem with firearms in the hands of well-trained and responsible adults. I simply believe that there are too few safeguards in place to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of people who are not well-trained and responsible adults. Those safeguards would be called "gun control", and are not synonymous with "gun banning".

    As for your specific situation, you have made a point of being in a high-risk profession that exposes you to greater risk that the average citizen - and have never needed to utilize your firearm. That being said, you want to maintain it "just in case". I don't particularly care - as long as no criminal gets his hands on it, no kid takes it to school to shoot at my kids, and you don't miss your target and hit someone I care about.
    That being said, given that you apparently intend to use it solely in reaction to a danger, you are assuming that you will actually have the opportunity to use it. Should you be assaulted by a "bad guy" that you don't see coming, you may not have that opportunity especially if that "bad guy" is armed.
     
  24. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    socialist absolutely believe, unequivocally, that Rights are not Rights, they are entitlements. They denounce Rights as such. No rationing reality will change that they believe that EVERYTHING should be regulated by government. This is usually because they don't trust themselves and that is the measure they use to everybody.

    The only reason they use statistics is because they have nothing else to use. The especially like to use foreign numbers to compare us other countries, as if that makes a difference.
    So, in the final analysis, without their precious numbers, they are nothing. They are reduced to the simplest common denominator, fear-mongering.
     
  25. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because I bring a gun to a gunfight doesn't mean I'll win. But I have a much better chance than if I didn't have it.
     

Share This Page