National School Walkout

[Pluto]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
Particularly, 10.45 gun deaths per 100,000 people and 101.05 guns per 100 people in 2014

For cars I had a bit more difficulty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year for car deaths and https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1990/

[carpedm9587]

You are clearly wrong. The argument is that we have an inherent right to own a gun. That is not a right that derives from any right to self protection.

Then the argument is wrong. No one has an inherent right to "own a thing." It is not inherent to human nature to "own guns." It is not part of the human psyche to "own guns." There is simply nothing about "owning a gun" that is an inherent part of "being human." Indeed, we didn't even HAVE guns for most of our existence as a species. So, somehow, when someone invented the gun, it suddenly became an "inherent right" for everyone to own one? What exactly changed in human nature to make THAT happen, and why did it not happen for any other "thing?" We've had houses long before we had guns - so why is it not an "inherent right" to own a house? Or clothing? Or a garden? Or a toilet? Why, exactly is it just "guns?" I see no history of the inherent right to own spears, or swords, or cannons, or even knives. How about cutlery? Dishes? A car? Paper? Why specifically is it an "inherent right" to own a gun and not any of these other things..?

The very notion is simply ludicrous. It has no foundation. It doesn't make one whit of sense.

[Sparko]

Actually - what the founding fathers thought/intended is not my primary metric. Of course I want to know what they were thinking so I can evaluate what they produced. But they were men - not objects for worship. They were also exclusively landed, white, and male, so not exactly a cross-section of our country. And many had views that today would be considered fairly racist (slavery, native americans, etc.). A quick read of the DOE shows this.

when you want to interpret the constitution or their writings, it is essential to understand what they intended.

Yes, these were smart men. Yes, knowing what they thought is important. They discussed and deliberated and wrote down their ideas, and I want to know what those were. But they also recognized that future ages might see a need to change what they had wrought, and they created a mechanism for that to happen. So, if I disagree with them OR you, such is life. That they lived 250 years ago and were the crafters of this great political experiment is laudable, but does not bind me to their thinking.

And in hindsight, I have to reverse myself regarding my last post. This "repeal the 2nd" position is fairly new to me, and I'm just thinking through the ramifications. I spent a lot of time defending the 2nd, and am just realizing that I was wrong. Reviewing my posts (which I should have done before) I DID imply that the 2nd only supported use of guns by militias, and that was wrong. Although the context was militias (and that context is gone), I do not believe use of guns would have been limited to militias in that time. These men were launching a new country, and hunting and self-protection were still critically important. I have to believe they considered that as well.

But the second is poorly written, and is focused on the wrong thing: a means to the end (guns) rather than the ends (self-protection). Ergo, I think it should be repealed.

It is not poorly written, you just don't understand it because "what the founding fathers thought/intended is not my primary metric." - You don't give a crap what they intended and ignore what they meant and substitute your own meaning and intent and then say it is "poorly written"

These were no bloggers or ordinary men Carp. These were leaders and lawyers and educated men. They knew what they were doing and what they were writing.

[Sparko]

On this we agree - so if the people want to repeal the second, and replace it with an amendment that protects the right to self-protection, THAT will be the new constitutional basis, THAT will be the right recognized by the people, and THAT will be what government is supposed to protect. And those who stand against it, they will be criminals, by definition.

The people can't give away our rights. They are fundamental rights. You think it would be legal if the people voted to take away your right to free speech? To peaceably assemble? To be secure in your possessions? If the "people" voted to create a Nazi nation, would you say that was legal and just go along with it? Because then THAT will be the new constitutional basis, THAT will be what the government is.

[carpedm9587]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
Particularly, 10.45 gun deaths per 100,000 people and 101.05 guns per 100 people in 2014

For cars I had a bit more difficulty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year for car deaths and https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1990/

I do love it when someone does this kind of analysis - so kudos to you for doing it. So some of the factors you did not include:

1) A car is not designed to kill/harm - that is a side-effect of its misuse. A gun is a weapon - it is designed to emit a projectile to do harm. That is why it was invented, and remains its primary use (though it is also widely used for target practice - but then what exactly are we practicing for...?)

2) Remove all of the guns from a society and you remove most/all of the risk with them. We need only look to countries who have taken this step to see the reality of this effect. Meanwhile, what will we have lost? Nothing, so long as we maintain the position of "gun as privilege." Those willing to earn the privilege, maintain the privilege, and do what is required to keep guns properly secured and out of harm's way will still be able to obtain them. The type of weapon would be limited (high capacity magazines, automatic and semi automatic weapons, etc.), but they would remain available to those who need them as a tool, and could be made available to hunters using a variety of different methods. Remove motor vehicles from society and our modern society screeches to a halt. So we have done much to improve the safety of these devices, and continue to do so, but until there is a broadly deployed mass transport, or until cars can be made intelligent and self-driving, hopefully increasing their safety, removing them does enormous harm.

3) Your "small amount of misuse" is a proportional concept, and you have limited yourself (apparently) to deaths. When you factor in all incidents where someone is harmed by a gun (not just killed), the annual number is about 100,000. That means your rate is about 0.031%. However, even when the number is as small as 0.031% misuse, when there are 320M guns in the country (and growing) that means every 5-6 minutes, somewhere in the U.S., someone misuses a gun. There is a simple means for reducing that carnage: reduce the capacity of guns and their sheer number.

[carpedm9587]

when you want to interpret the constitution or their writings, it is essential to understand what they intended.

Yes, it is. And when what they included is wrong, it is essential to change it.

It is not poorly written, you just don't understand it because "what the founding fathers thought/intended is not my primary metric." - You don't give a crap what they intended and ignore what they meant and substitute your own meaning and intent and then say it is "poorly written"

I understand it quite well. The government cannot abridge a person's "right to own firearms." Except they were wrong about people having a "right" to own firearms. People have a "right" to life - and to self-defense. They do not have a right to own a thing. If the founding fathers thought so, I can understand why - but they were wrong - for all the reasons I have already cited. That's why the 2nd must be repealed.

These were no bloggers or ordinary men Carp. These were leaders and lawyers and educated men. They knew what they were doing and what they were writing.

Oh horsehockey, Sparko. Yes, they were educated men. So am I. They knew what they were doing. So do I. And the most educated men in the world can make mistakes. Ask Jorge what he thinks of Hawkins intelligence given his rejection of religions and gods (in general). Even smart men can be trapped into parochial thinking by their circumstances. Just because we call them the "Founding Fathers" does not mean we don't hold them up to scrutiny, as we would any other human being. They're men - not gods.

[carpedm9587]

The people can't give away our rights. They are fundamental rights. You think it would be legal if the people voted to take away your right to free speech? To peaceably assemble? To be secure in your possessions? If the "people" voted to create a Nazi nation, would you say that was legal and just go along with it? Because then THAT will be the new constitutional basis, THAT will be what the government is.

They are not giving it away - they are denying you ever had it. It is not a fundamental right (see my response to Jedidiah). It is a claimed right you don't actually have. And the constitution is wrong in suggesting you do - which is why the amendment needs to go. The rest of your post is just FUD.

[Sparko]

Yes, it is. And when what they included is wrong, it is essential to change it.



I understand it quite well. The government cannot abridge a person's "right to own firearms." Except they were wrong about people having a "right" to own firearms. People have a "right" to life - and to self-defense. They do not have a right to own a thing. If the founding fathers thought so, I can understand why - but they were wrong - for all the reasons I have already cited. That's why the 2nd must be repealed.



Oh horsehockey, Sparko. Yes, they were educated men. So am I. They knew what they were doing. So do I. And the most educated men in the world can make mistakes. Ask Jorge what he thinks of Hawkins intelligence given his rejection of religions and gods (in general). Even smart men can be trapped into parochial thinking by their circumstances. Just because we call them the "Founding Fathers" does not mean we don't hold them up to scrutiny, as we would any other human being. They're men - not gods.

This all boils down to some 50+ year-old guy on the internet trying to tell the founding fathers they were wrong because he disagrees with them.

[Sparko]

They are not giving it away - they are denying you ever had it. It is not a fundamental right (see my response to Jedidiah). It is a claimed right you don't actually have. And the constitution is wrong in suggesting you do - which is why the amendment needs to go. The rest of your post is just FUD.

FUD?

You are the one arguing that if we give away our rights that it is legal and we have to obey the new government. When I take that to the logical conclusion you refuse to answer and call it "FUD?"

Afraid to answer?

[Jedidiah]

. . . I don't see how . . . snip . . . I haave no idea how

Personal incredulity is no argument. You have been given many other understandings right here on TWeb, if you can not understand those you have no argument at all.

[carpedm9587]

This all boils down to some 50+ year-old guy on the internet trying to tell the founding fathers they were wrong because he disagrees with them.

Yes - it does. And it's not just one 50+ (59 actually) guy. There are a lot of us, and our numbers are growing - largely because of the intransigence of the right.

[carpedm9587]

FUD?

You are the one arguing that if we give away our rights that it is legal and we have to obey the new government. When I take that to the logical conclusion you refuse to answer and call it "FUD?"

Afraid to answer?

We are not suggesting taking away your rights. We are saying you never had them and the Constitutional framers were wrong and the amendment needs to be disposed of.

And what exactly have I failed to answer?

[Jedidiah]

The very notion is simply ludicrous. It has no foundation. It doesn't make one whit of sense.

It doesn't make one whit of sense to you with your personal incredulity non-argument.

[carpedm9587]

Personal incredulity is no argument. You have been given many other understandings right here on TWeb, if you can not understand those you have no argument at all.

Those are turns of phrase, Jedidiah. My way of saying, "your argument makes no sense to me," for the reasons I cited. The right cannot defend the statement "we have the right to own guns" beyond what is stated in the 2nd Amendment. You cannot explain what makes this right "inherent" or "fundamental" beyond asserting it. And when someone says, "if the constitution is your only recourse, then we have to change the constitution," the response is, "no - it's an inherent right and we'll take up arms to protect it."

Round and round you go, with no real substance to the argument except, "the FFs said so" and "It's in the 2nd Amendment" and "It's my RIGHT." Demonstrate to me, to all of us, what makes "owning a gun" an "inherent" or "fundamental" human right, when owning no other thing has that status? And how did this right suddenly emerge at the moment the gun was invented? What is it, specifically, about a gun that make it, of all possessions, a "fundamental right?"

[Jedidiah]

this all boils down to some 50+ year-old guy on the internet trying to tell the founding fathers they were wrong because he can't understand what they were thinking.

fify