Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post


    So ... we are talking about the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. And other than to say I don't buy arguments based on treating them as equivalent, I've not said anything at all in this thread about the 1st amendment. So upon what do you base your current attempt to cast your derogatory bile my direction?
    The problem is that the argument you make against the Second Amendment -- that it should be limited because immoral men can use their freedoms to cause harm -- applies with equal validity to every other protected right. To claim otherwise is just special pleading.

    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    You are the one claiming their decisions in this area encompass all times and situations. The burden of proof there is your own.

    But they most certainly provided a means by which any element of the constitution could be amended or removed --- exhibit 1 in my defense.
    There's nothing for me to prove. A plain reading of the Second Amendment does not allow for the kind of exceptions you are claiming. You further suggest that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with your position; therefore, the burden is yours too prove they had the same view of the Second Amendment as you, and that they envisioned a time when such exceptions as you describe would be necessary.

    As for amending our Constitution, it is a deliberately slow and difficult process. It's why liberals have opted for "reinterpreting" the law, or simply ignoring it.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      The problem is that the argument you make against the Second Amendment -- that it should be limited because immoral men can use their freedoms to cause harm -- applies with equal validity to every other protected right. To claim otherwise is just special pleading.
      Unfortunately you are overgeneralizing my argument and by doing so mischaracterizing it. This is a very specific problem that applies only to the 2nd amendment. to wield guns morally requires character and a clear perception of reality. To not wield them morally is to kill and maim quickly and efficiently. I do not believe the founding fathers envisioned the extreme fall into hedonism and narcisim that characterizes so many of us now. As Ben Franklin pointed put, this grand experiment doesn't work for an immoral people.

      and I will reiterate i'm not advocating for a repeal of the second amendment. But rather just a process for ensuring as much as possible that those owning them be people that are very unlikely to use them to create chaos and death.

      There's nothing for me to prove. A plain reading of the Second Amendment does not allow for the kind of exceptions you are claiming. You further suggest that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with your position; therefore, the burden is yours too prove they had the same view of the Second Amendment as you, and that they envisioned a time when such exceptions as you describe would be necessary.
      Moving the goal posts as it were. The founding fathers anticipated that their provisions might fail or need to be modified, and that is why a means of amending the constitution was provided. Which means assuming they considered all options or necessarily foresaw what we face today is contradicted by their own actions and provisions for change.

      They were not gods, they were men.

      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-08-2021, 01:11 AM.
      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        This is a very specific problem that applies only to the 2nd amendment.
        Also known as the fallacy of special pleading.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        The founding fathers anticipated that their provisions might fail or need to be modified, and that is why a means of amending the constitution was provided. Which means assuming they considered all options or necessarily foresaw what we face today is contradicted by their own actions and provisions for change.
        As I said, this line of reasoning applies with equal validity to every other protected right even though you're trying to make an exception only for the Second Amendment.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          Bill of rights? 2nd amendment to the < insert answer here >
          You don't know that the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution that guarantee our civil rights??

          I was saying I was glad you had nothing to do with writing those.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            I don't consider the two even remotely equivalent - so you'll need another analogy.
            I don't really care what you think. Everyone here can see you are not being rational about this. It IS a good analogy, which is why you are trying so hard to dismiss it.

            Guns are a weapon that has one purpose - to kill.
            Wrong. They can be used for sport, and for hunting. And self-defense. They are not just tools of murder as you seem to think. Words are the same. They can be used for love or hate, helping or hurting. Again the analogy holds. What matters is what the person using the tool does with it, whether a knife, a gun, or words.


            And the right to own one, I believe, should be limited to those that have shown themselves mentally capable of wielding that power morally. If I'm stupid with my speech, people just ignore me. If I'm stupid with my gun, people die. If I walk into a restaurant and rant about the management at the top of my voice, people might be offended, but they all walk away. If a person walks into that same restraint with their AR 15 (or semi-automatic pistol) and they express their anger that way, the occupants may well all be dead.
            Again, I am glad you are not in charge. If you go out in the street and start ranting about how black/white/jewish/police are not human and deserve to be lynched you could start a riot that ends up killing hundreds and destroying businesses and lives for months to come. Just look at our cities over the last year because of one video showing a cop murdering a black man. Months of rioting, violence, looting, attacks on police, burning. Because of ONE video and reporters using the first amendment. A heck of a lot more damage than one person with an AR-15.



            Sorry - I simply don't concede that as a valid argument wrt the reasons we need to reign in access to guns. The issue at hand is the nearly instantaneous carnage a gun can inflict in the hands of an insane, angry, or grossly immoral person.

            I get that you need to find a way to minimize or dismiss the analogy, but you can't. It's a good analogy. You can misuse any right. That doesn't justify trying to eliminate that right for everyone else.


            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

              You are the one claiming their decisions in this area encompass all times and situations. The burden of proof there is your own.

              But they most certainly provided a means by which any element of the constitution could be amended or removed --- exhibit 1 in my defense.
              If you read the bill of rights, especially the first and second amendment, they are not GRANTING us rights, they are acknowledging our rights and restricting government from interfering with them. Removing the amendments would not remove our rights. It would just allow the government to trample them. Which is why some of the founding fathers insisted that they be listed in the BoR. Not to give us rights, but to make sure the government wouldn't abuse them.


              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                Guns are a weapon that has one purpose - to kill.
                Aside from the obvious falsehood of that statement, statistics show that firearms are used FAR more often to defend a life than to take one.

                Even the vehemently anti-2A Violence Policy Center (VPC) acknowledges that in the U.S. defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year compared to 14,861 people dying as a result of firearm homicide. And IIRC, their methodology required that the firearm had to be fired in order to count. IOW, they didn't include all of the times people merely opened a jacket to reveal a holstered sidearm, chambered a round in a pump shotgun, and the like which would cause the number of defensive uses to skyrocket.

                Thus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. And there is good reason to believe that many if not most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement. I know the times I was involved they weren't.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Also known as the fallacy of special pleading.
                  Source: wikipedia


                  Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I have made clear why there is a distinction. But I think there is perhaps a more direct argument: through the principle of infringement.

                  As I said, this line of reasoning applies with equal validity to every other protected right even though you're trying to make an exception only for the Second Amendment.
                  You are using overgeneralization to gloss over the distinctions made.

                  Any argument for a distinction can be claimed to be special pleading if one first ovegeneralizes to the point a common enclosing idea can be found. This is why the definition of special pleading says 'without justifying the special exemption'.

                  But perhaps more directly: you are not incorporating into your argument the fact that a right only can be honored to the point it does not infringe on another person's rights. This is why free speech doesn't give on the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. To the extent the right to bear arms infringes on the rights of others to live, it must be curtailed or limited.
                  Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    If you read the bill of rights, especially the first and second amendment, they are not GRANTING us rights, they are acknowledging our rights and restricting government from interfering with them. Removing the amendments would not remove our rights. It would just allow the government to trample them. Which is why some of the founding fathers insisted that they be listed in the BoR. Not to give us rights, but to make sure the government wouldn't abuse them.
                    Those were among the God-given "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      If you read the bill of rights, especially the first and second amendment, they are not GRANTING us rights, they are acknowledging our rights and restricting government from interfering with them. Removing the amendments would not remove our rights. It would just allow the government to trample them. Which is why some of the founding fathers insisted that they be listed in the BoR. Not to give us rights, but to make sure the government wouldn't abuse them.
                      That is a fair argument. In terms of not removing the 2nd amendment. It does not get to the fundamental problem however of people with guns callously killing others in large groups. As I mentioned above, the issue is that in those cases the exercise of the right takes away the rights of others. And while I may have been clumsy in framing what the distinction between the first and second anendments here and in earlier discussions, I think infringement sums it up well. I can't use free speech to take away your free speech, or your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise I can't use the right to bear arms to take away your right to live, or your right to free speech. So there is a responsibility of the government to prevent the exercise of a right to the extent it infringes on another right

                      And that is what gun laws do. They make it harder or less likely for the exercise of the second amendment right to infringe on other rights. And that is also a clear distinction between the right to bear arms and many other rights in that a gun inherently provides the capability to easily take away another's rights permanently and instantaneously.
                      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post


                        But perhaps more directly: you are not incorporating into your argument the fact that a right only can be honored to the point it does not infringe on another person's rights. This is why free speech doesn't give on the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. To the extent the right to bear arms infringes on the rights of others to live, it must be curtailed or limited.
                        It is, Jim. That is why we have laws against murder. That is how we limit someone's right to own and use a gun/kinfe/club/rock from interfering with someone's right to live.


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          That is a fair argument. In terms of not removing the 2nd amendment. It does not get to the fundamental problem however of people with guns callously killing others in large groups. As I mentioned above, the issue is that in those cases the exercise of the right takes away the rights of others. And while I may have been clumsy in framing what the distinction between the first and second anendments here and in earlier discussions, I think infringement sums it up well. I can't use free speech to take away your free speech, or your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise I can't use the right to bear arms to take away your right to live, or your right to free speech. So there is a responsibility of the government to prevent the exercise of a right to the extent it infringes on another right

                          And that is what gun laws do. They make it harder or less likely for the exercise of the second amendment right to infringe on other rights. And that is also a clear distinction between the right to bear arms and many other rights in that a gun inherently provides the capability to easily take away another's rights permanently and instantaneously.
                          That is why we have laws Jim. They balance a person's rights with another's. When you misuse your right to free speech to defame someone or incite a riot, there are laws that can punish you. If you use your right to bear arms to rob a store there are laws that punish you. You don't take the right away from everyone to punish those who misuse it.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                            That is a fair argument. In terms of not removing the 2nd amendment. It does not get to the fundamental problem however of people with guns callously killing others in large groups. As I mentioned above, the issue is that in those cases the exercise of the right takes away the rights of others. And while I may have been clumsy in framing what the distinction between the first and second anendments here and in earlier discussions, I think infringement sums it up well. I can't use free speech to take away your free speech, or your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise I can't use the right to bear arms to take away your right to live, or your right to free speech. So there is a responsibility of the government to prevent the exercise of a right to the extent it infringes on another right

                            And that is what gun laws do. They make it harder or less likely for the exercise of the second amendment right to infringe on other rights. And that is also a clear distinction between the right to bear arms and many other rights in that a gun inherently provides the capability to easily take away another's rights permanently and instantaneously.
                            The right to bear arms does not infringe on anyone's rights. The illegal use of a gun may do so. To go extreme, you have the right to keep your hands attached to your arms. The government cannot forcibly cut your hands off. However, it is still illegal to use your hands to violently beat and kill someone. You can use your hands to essentially remove someone's right to life. The fact that you can do so, does not give the government the ability to start chopping off hands.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Source: wikipedia

                              Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Very good. Your argument establishes "a general or universal principle" that if the exercise of a right causes harm, then that right should be denied or at least restricted. You then try to carve out an arbitrary exception for the First Amendment and other protected rights.

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              You are using overgeneralization to gloss over the distinctions made.
                              Because your attempt at creating a "distinction" is arbitrary and logically fallacious.

                              As far as yelling "Fire!" in a theater is concerned...

                              Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

                              Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

                              [...]

                              ...those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

                              First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

                              [...]

                              The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

                              Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

                              In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

                              Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

                              https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

                              It's worth noting that Justice Holmes recognized his mistake, and his decisions in later cases laid the groundwork for ultimately overturning U.S. v. Schenck.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                I don't really care what you think. ...
                                The fact you are having this discussion is evidence to the contrary.

                                Wrong. They can be used for sport, and for hunting.
                                Hunting is killing. Sport - in this case- is acquiring sufficient skill to be better at killing.

                                And self-defense.
                                which is either killing, incapacitating, or threatening to kill. Guns are weapons designed to kill or maim. All you are doing is saying sometimes it is ok to kill or maim, or that it is ok to hone ones skill at killing or maiming with said gun.


                                They are not just tools of murder as you seem to think.
                                Now you are doing the same thing MM does - changing my words into something else and arguing against that something else. I said kill, not murder.


                                Words are the same. They can be used for love or hate, helping or hurting. Again the analogy holds.
                                No, it doesn't. Guns are for killing or maiming. They are weapons and almost useless for any other purpose.. Words can be weapons, but are much, much more than merely weapons.

                                What matters is what the person using the tool does with it, whether a knife, a gun, or words.
                                Knives and words are much more than just weapons.. Guns are just weapons and wholly impractical for any other purpose.



                                Again, I am glad you are not in charge. If you go out in the street and start ranting about how black/white/jewish/police are not human and deserve to be lynched you could start a riot that ends up killing hundreds and destroying businesses and lives for months to come. Just look at our cities over the last year because of one video showing a cop murdering a black man. Months of rioting, violence, looting, attacks on police, burning. Because of ONE video and reporters using the first amendment. A heck of a lot more damage than one person with an AR-15.





                                I get that you need to find a way to minimize or dismiss the analogy, but you can't. It's a good analogy. You can misuse any right. That doesn't justify trying to eliminate that right for everyone else.
                                Sorry. As I said - not in a crowded theatre. The potential to immediately and permanently strip from you all your rights with a gun means it requires more careful regulation than the other elements we call rights. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself ( which is the actual right the 2nd amendment aims to define ), but you do not have the right to take my life from me. As worded, the 2nd amendment clumsily grants both.

                                Which I think helps clarify. Often we try to define the problem through a solution. The right to bear arms is a solution. The actual right it aims to defend is the right to defend oneself against evil.. be it government or an attacker.. but it is flawed in that it also grants power and capability to those that would do far worse than simply defend themselves.
                                Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 07:36 PM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                5 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-24-2021, 10:20 AM
                                11 responses
                                84 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-23-2021, 07:21 PM
                                77 responses
                                538 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-23-2021, 01:13 PM
                                11 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Working...
                                X