Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[JimL]

Much easier to set up false dichotomies and parse words than bother to actually learn what drove them, eh?

Sometimes you only need to use common sense OBP. If a well regulated militia was not part of the amendments intent, then the mentioning of a militia's would be superfluous.

[Joel]

Actually I agree. No right is completely limitless or absolute. Just like the First Amendment's right to free speech doesn't allow someone to libel or slander someone or shout "fire" in the proverbial crowded theater (unless, of course, there is a fire).

But the only reason for saying that a particular right is not absolute is because you've identified some other right that takes precedence and is thus more absolute than the first. Unless you are going to keep doing that in an infinite regress of higher and higher rights, eventually you must arrive at an absolute right.


By the way, the shouting-fire-in-a-theater example is not an actual exception in modern jurisprudence.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/
It was never a binding part of the ruling, and the ruling itself was "overturned over 40 years ago."

[One Bad Pig]

Sometimes you only need to use common sense OBP. If a well regulated militia was not part of the amendments intent, then the mentioning of a militia's would be superfluous.

I don't recall ever saying that militias were not part of the amendment's intent (and, historically, those were state militias). I sort of agree with you that you only need to use common sense here; common sense tells me that, when attempting to closely parse words in a legal document, it helps to understand the intent of those who wrote the words and the audience for which they were written.

[RumTumTugger]

I don't recall ever saying that militias were not part of the amendment's intent (and, historically, those were state militias). I sort of agree with you that you only need to use common sense here; common sense tells me that, when attempting to closely parse words in a legal document, it helps to understand the intent of those who wrote the words and the audience for which they were written.

This is JimL who is a willing stooge to those who want government control of all our lives you are talking to. This would require he do his homework which he is to lazy to do.

[Jedidiah]

That would be a democracy, which is not our form of government. Ideally, our elected officials are representative of us. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, recognizes that the ideal situation is rarely the case, and does its best to mitigate the effects of less than ideal situations. In an ideal world, we would not need the 2nd Amendment.

Not only that but we often see lack of concern in federal government for the will of the people. I do not trust them at all.

[Adrift]

It's a question of who has the right to user/control the thing. If no one can own anything, then no one has the right to do anything, and everyone dies.

By lack of ownership, I had in mind some indigenous cultures who were either ignorant or denied the concept of personal ownership assuming that all lands and goods were shared and used communally.

If everyone owns a thing, then again there is no answer to the problem that not everyone can use a rivalrous good (or not at the same time). There will be conflict, and it has to be settled who has the right to determine its use at the time, which is a question of property right. Even socialists have to assert property ownership (e.g. owned by the government/the majority vote). Every political thinker is necessarily putting forth a theory of property rights.

That's fair. As I understand it certain anarchists, for instance, hold dual views on the concept of property ownership, distinguishing between private and personal property. Is that correct?

As for whether any given state should outlaw it, my personal position is that it should be legal in a state. Primarily because of property rights. But also because I think the war on drugs causes worse consequences than it is able to prevent. To bring it back to mass shootings, when people cite really high rates of mass shootings in the U.S., they are getting that by including gang battles and hits, which happen due to the black market created by the war on drugs. So if people are really interested in reducing mass shootings, the most effective step would be to end the war on drugs, and that would have numerous additional benefits besides.

Again, I gotta say I'm blown away by the amount of Christians here who are for drug legalization. Very...interesting.

Investigating the various arguments for the existence of rights, including their grounding in human nature, is a big discussion of its own. To start, do you agree that there exists natural morality--morality that's not just the creation of human beings? If not, it would seem that no humans can create moral obligation either, because, as you say, why should anyone recognize their authority?

I think this is really the crux of the issue though. No, I do not agree that there exists natural morality, or at least, not as it's usually defined in a naturalistic sense as a morality that's based on how humans have evolved. I believe in an objective morality that's based in God's nature. There exist plenty of people who assert that there are no moral obligations, or at least, none that are objective in nature.

[Teallaura]

Teal do guns fire themselves? Not automatic sentry but a gun you would buy at a store. They do not. When people say that they are pointing out that a person is using a gun. Besides unless you want to pistol whip somebody you are not going to kill with the gun itself but the bullets the gun propels.

I want to see what Micah said would happen about swords being beaten into plows hares but that will happen at the end of days when things are set right permanently and evil is wiped out.

We agree on something big here. Life is precious. We disagree on how to protect life in this circumstance.

I must admit though I feel happy that you and kg and adrift are not demonizing folks.

Allow me to re-phrase - the argument is a straw man and always has been. Yes, we know full well guns can't pull their own triggers - honestly, that would probably be SAFER than letting humans do it.

GUNS are WEAPONS and do in fact kill people. No human can throw a bullet fast enough to cause penetration, let alone death. It's not only a straw man - it's stupid.

[Teallaura]

You admit it needs correcting and much dialogue.
What do you reccomend as a correction?

Are you trying to annoy me? I am really not seeing the point to rehashing this. I already specified what augmentations I would make - and I have no objection to the IT (not tech) making appropriate adjustments to the AWB so that Rogue can buy his scary looking single shot.

The problem comes from the all or nothing gun proponent side that won't make even reasonable concessions. See this whole freaking thread for proof - eight people dog piling two - one of whom agreed with them more than not! The AWB is just a talking point now - proponents want to use it as a means of reversing gun restrictions. They don't want it adjusted to ban only the weapons it was supposed to apply to.

[Teallaura]

Seriously? The whole ban was based on the cosmetic appearance of a weapon rather than functionality. Even if some* gun manufacturers hadn't made identically functioning weapons with a different appearance it would have been dumb legislation. As rogue already pointed out, one of the "assault weapons" that was banned held a single bullet, and had to be reopened in order to load a new one in.

I'm still not seeing anything that would actually prevent the kinds of shootings that this thread was started about being suggested.

*From what I understand this wasn't the case with several weapons with legal and illegal versions, as the law was based on cosmetic appearance to begin with.

When it was in committee, the GP side went absolutely ballistic (pun not intended). They refused to make any concessions - they wanted the thing killed and would not settle for less. The result is that people who weren't as knowledgeable ended up doing the initial work. It got much worse when the thing passed - the normal process of input was ignored so a bunch of bureaucrats did what they had to do - and not surprisingly, didn't do the best job of it.

So, no, the 'this wasn't really an assault weapon' thing is not much of an argument. It is a valid concern - which is why I have no issue with adjusting the regulations. I do have an issue with repealing the ban, however.

[Teallaura]

One word: CONTEXT. It's not an argument!

[Teallaura]

Not great, but better that than being wholly defenseless. Firing a gun is not exactly difficult.

Unless you're not one of the rioters and happen to get in the way. Amateurs taking on violent mobs - this does not make for a good ending.

[Teallaura]

Back in the late 80s-early 90s I actually made a "bazooka." Pretty darn easy to do. Of course making or obtaining military grade rockets for it is a bit trickier.

You are a special case. Probably the only guy I know who should himself be regulated as a public danger...

[Teallaura]

Calling every gun owner irresponsible/stupid/insane is a Starlight-level thing to do, IMO (yay dismissal!). From a common-sense perspective it seems obviously false anyway; there are something like 300 million guns in the US, and you seriously don't believe in responsible gun owners? Maybe you just have crap friends.

I already explained this - twice. There's a part of me that will never buy into 'responsible gun owner' for the reasons given. Intellectually, I recognize the problem - which is part of why I don't support abolition. I can recognize the unfairness intellectually - but that wasn't what I was talking about when this came up.

And only one of the people who discharged the gun was a friend - who in his carelessness, killed another friend. Neither of them were 'crap' - but humans aren't perfect and never responsible 100% of the time. A split second is all it takes with a gun.

So no, I don't really believe in responsible gun owners - or the tooth fairy.

[Teallaura]

This is sorta a non sequitur. It may limit gun violence (as opposed to other violence), but at what cost? Was Germany a first world nation in the '30s?

Um, no, Germany wasn't.

Just an FYI - doesn't counter your point per se

[One Bad Pig]

Unless you're not one of the rioters and happen to get in the way. Amateurs taking on violent mobs - this does not make for a good ending.

Amateurs are not likely to be seeking out violent mobs to take on. There probably aren't a lot of non-rioters getting in the way of business/home owners defending their turf. It is certainly not an ideal situation, but that's no call to get all angsty about worst-case scenarios.