Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

[Sparko]

No - what is silly is you trying to equate a random massacre of multiple people with a single weapon in a few minutes with the effect over time of ideas communicated through speech. You won't even acknowledge a gun is a weapon whose primary and almost exclusive purpose is to kill or destroy. It is, in fact, one of the most limited weapons there is in terms of what it can be used for outside killing and maiming. In that sense it is equivalent to a bow and arrow, only much more powerful in range, delivered energy, and number of shots. Knives, even explosives have orders of magnitudes more non-violent use capability than a gun.

Why does that matter? Because the 2nd amendment is trying to grant us a capability for self-defense on an individual basis. It is not actually about guns, it is about self-defense. The right to bear arms grants a self-defense capacity, but it does not ONLY grant a self-defense capability. And that is where the problems are (I am including the idea of an armed citizenry as a defense against an invasion by a hostile force in 'self-defense')

So, the actual right being protected is the right to self-defense. Does that make a difference? Well, indeed it does in that if we acknowledge that then we can tailor our response to the problem of guns to that which limits their offensive use outside of a self-defense paradigm, while impinging only minimally on their defensive use. For example, a person that is violent can be denied the right to own a gun because they have shown a propensity to use a gun outside a self-defense paradigm. So why not at least attempt to ensure that people are psychologically stable (to the extent possible) if they desire to own a gun? Why not require extensive background checks in the purchase of any gun any where, instead of excluding private gun sales or gun shows? Why not make it very, very hard on a criminal that is found with a gun of any kind? These types of limitations do not keep me from owning a gun, from being able to defend myself - UNLESS I have shown I'm likely to go beyond self-defense in my use of the gun.

Your special pleading is getting a bit old, Jim. I have decided to redefine my gun as a cordless hole puncher.

The right to bear arms doesn't grant any misuse of the gun. It doesn't even grant the right of self-defense. That is a right we have regardless of the 2nd amendment. A gun is just one tool we could use to accomplish that. We could use a knife, a lawyer, or our fists. Laws regulate how we can use guns. Just like they regulate other weapons. Removing the right to own guns is just not a viable solution. Enforcing the laws we already have would be a good start. Prosecute gun murders and crimes with severe penalties and sentences. Punish those who misuse guns rather than punishing those who do not.

[oxmixmudd]

Your special pleading is getting a bit old, Jim. I have decided to redefine my gun as a cordless hole puncher.

The right to bear arms doesn't grant any misuse of the gun. It doesn't even grant the right of self-defense. That is a right we have regardless of the 2nd amendment. A gun is just one tool we could use to accomplish that. We could use a knife, a lawyer, or our fists. Laws regulate how we can use guns. Just like they regulate other weapons. Removing the right to own guns is just not a viable solution. Enforcing the laws we already have would be a good start. Prosecute gun murders and crimes with severe penalties and sentences. Punish those who misuse guns rather than punishing those who do not.

So then - you would advocate then for the idea that everyone, no matter if they are insane, or a violent felon, or wife and/or child abuser, drug additct etc. has a fundamental right to own a gun?

[Sparko]

So then - you would advocate then for the idea that everyone, no matter if they are insane, or a violent felon, or wife and/or child abuser, drug additct etc. has a fundamental right to own a gun?

sigh.

Yes, Ox, that is what I am advocating for. You got me.

[oxmixmudd]

sigh.

Yes, Ox, that is what I am advocating for. You got me.

That is very sad then.

[Sparko]

That is very sad then.

Or you are burning straw because I never said any such thing. I do think that someone's rights should not be removed without due process and certainly not by some law that violates the constitution.

[Mountain Man]

Liberals are engaging in a sort of "pre-crime" mentality like in the story Minority Report where people are declared guilty before a crime has even been committed.

"A person with a gun might use it to commit a crime, so we are obligated to deny his rights before he has that opportunity."

[oxmixmudd]

Or you are burning straw because I never said any such thing. I do think that someone's rights should not be removed without due process and certainly not by some law that violates the constitution.

I've only taking the same sort of extreme reaction to your words that you have taken to mine. Interesting, you don't deal with it nearly as well as I do

[oxmixmudd]

Liberals are engaging in a sort of "pre-crime" mentality like in the story Minority Report where people are declared guilty before a crime has even been committed.

"A person with a gun might use it to commit a crime, so we are obligated to deny his rights before he has that opportunity."

Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.

[Sparko]

I've only taking the same sort of extreme reaction to your words that you have taken to mine. Interesting, you don't deal with it nearly as well as I do

Riigghhht.

[oxmixmudd]

Riigghhht.

That is exactly what I did Sparko. I said to myself "Sparko is constantly distorting my positions and going off on extreme tangents, lets see how he reacts when I do the same to his tendency to reject any attempts to control access to guns". And that is what I did. And your capacity to argue rationally under that paradigm collapsed immediately. Since you can't handle what you dish out, perhaps you should try a different approach.

[Sparko]

That is exactly what I did Sparko. I said to myself "Sparko is constantly distorting my positions and going off on extreme tangents, lets see how he reacts when I do the same to his tendency to reject any attempts to control access to guns". And that is what I did. And your capacity to argue rationally under that paradigm collapsed immediately. Since you can't handle what you dish out, perhaps you should try a different approach.

OK, you keep telling yourself that Jim. I didn't distort your position, I merely responded to what you actually said and gave some counters to it. Which you dismissed as "bad analogies" - then you tried burning a straw man and claiming I hold a position I never said I did.

[CivilDiscourse]

Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.

"Reasonable safeguards" One person's "reasonable" is another's unreasonable. Imagine putting Trump in charge of "reasonable safeguards" on speech or freedom of the press.

I get skeptical once people start talking "reasonable", as it's a weasel word without real meaning.

[oxmixmudd]

OK, you keep telling yourself that Jim. I didn't distort your position, I merely responded to what you actually said and gave some counters to it. Which you dismissed as "bad analogies" - then you tried burning a straw man and claiming I hold a position I never said I did.

Yeah - you did. Your counters were based on absurd conclusions relative to my comments, exactly as my example response to you was. It's a standard incendiary rhetoric - accuse the fellow you are arguing with of some extreme but obviously absurd consequence of what was said and then pretend as if that was the entire and only intended meaning that could have been their point.

It's why so many discussions on this board become flaming matches.

As I said, if you can't handle what you dish out, then maybe you should change your approach. You can have the last insult.

[Sparko]

Yeah - you did. Your counters were based on absurd conclusions relative to my comments, exactly as my example response to you was. It's a standard incendiary rhetoric - accuse the fellow you are arguing with of some extreme but obviously absurd consequence of what was said and then pretend as if that was the entire and only intended meaning that could have been their point.

It's why so many discussions on this board become flaming matches.

As I said, if you can't handle what you dish out, then maybe you should change your approach. You can have the last insult.

OK, please tell me what position of yours I misrepresented or distorted. What incendiary rhetoric did I "dish out" exactly? If I did, I am sorry.

[Mountain Man]

Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.

In that case, maybe you can explain to me why you think honest, law abiding citizens should be denied the right to own weapons with which they can defend themselves.