National School Walkout

[carpedm9587]

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

No one here has made a cogent argument for it, Jedidiah. Indeed, the arguments made seem to go in circles. It's the constitution. It's the FFs. It's a fundamental right. Refute one, and folks jump to the other, in an endless round-robin with no substance to the argument.

And no one has actually answered the problem I posed. It just magically disappears from the responses...

[Jedidiah]

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?"

Most of your response is junk. Telling me what I think, or what I would say. I have never once said any of the stuff you are putting in my mouth. I do believe that a repeal of the 2nd would be taking away a right seen by the founding fathers as existing prior to the amendment. It would be wrong and another step down the slope from the US being a free and respectable nation. That in no way suggests that I would start shooting - I would not. I suspect that such a divisive move might very well start a revolution, but I won't be a part of it.

Now you claimed that you would apologize when you start putting words on others mouths. Will you follow through?

[carpedm9587]

Most of your response is junk. Telling me what I think, or what I would say. I have never once said any of the stuff you are putting in my mouth.

Where on earth did I tell you what you think or what you would say? I've gone back through the thread and I'm not finding it.

I do believe that a repeal of the 2nd would be taking away a right seen by the founding fathers as existing prior to the amendment.

And I believe it would be repealing a "right" the FFs put into the constitution in error - it is not a "fundamental" or "inherent" right in the least, and it needs to be corrected.

It would be wrong and another step down the slope from the US being a free and respectable nation.

And I believe it would be right and would show the world the US values its people more than "things."

That in no way suggests that I would start shooting - I would not.

Those comments were about the statement made by Seer, and about the complete absence of anyone here calling him on it. Indeed, most have been defending him. If you do not, then the comments do not apply to you.

I suspect that such a divisive move might very well start a revolution, but I won't be a part of it.

Then for that, you have my respect. That is what I would expect an American, and someone who values rule-of-law and claims to be "law abiding" to say and how I would expect them to act.

Now you claimed that you would apologize when you start putting words on others mouths. Will you follow through?

Absolutely. Indeed, I have no idea what you're referring to - but I will apologize for it anyway. Telling someone else what they think or meant, or adding things to someone else's post that they did not put there is anathema to me. It's why I despise, and won't do, the "FIFY" thing. I find it childish. But I would very much like to know where I did this - so I can be sure not to do it again. I have gone back through all of my responses to you, and I'm simply not finding it.

[seer]

Because we have a gun-happy contingent in this country and have had a lack of any real gun controls due to the hammer-lock the NRA and the gun lobby has had on members of Congress. That is showing signs of finally changing.

Just as the pro-death abortion lobby has influence in Congress, it is called the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps we should get rid of that one too.

No - I am sure it happened by design. The growth truly escalated with the shift in the NRA in 1977.

But it was actually easier to get firearms back in the day than now, so I guess the NRA must be failing.

Emphasis on minority.

And you would have no problem taking away the rights of a minority. Where have I heard that before...

You sacrificed "law abiding" when you made it clear the law makes no difference, and you will shoot your fellow citizens if they pass and enforce laws you disagree with.

Carp, didn't I say I was to old to fight or do much of anything?

I would assess that as "unlikely." First of all, if I do give up citizenship in a couple of years, it will likely not be for the far east. Second, I think we are seeing the ice-damn cracking on gun control. Time will tell - but each new atrocity adds fuel to the dynamic, and I see no reason to think they are just magically going to stop. By 2020, the kids who are today Juniors and Seniors will be voting. Many of the sophomores will be as well. Coupled with the energy building on the left, I suspect we will begin to see changes.

Yes it is possible that these brainwashed bots will be just as anti-freedom and totalitarian as you - yea...

[carpedm9587]

Just as the pro-death abortion lobby has influence in Congress, it is called the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps we should get rid of that one too.

No - that one is based on an actual right.

But it was actually easier to get firearms back in the day than now, so I guess the NRA must be failing.

The percentage of households owning guns has actually shrunk over the years, but the total number of guns has skyrocketed, and about half of the guns are owned by about 3% of the population. Meanwhile, guns may have been "easier to get" back then, but they were not being "got" at anywhere near the current numbers. The total number of guns in the U.S. has increased mote than six fold since 1945, and doubled since 1968. In the same time period (1945-2018) population has only slightly more than doubled.

So the NRA is hardly failing. Their total expenditure is also increasing.

And you would have no problem taking away the rights of a minority. Where have I heard that before...

I would have no problem removing a "right" that is not "fundamental" or "inherent" in any way. I notice you guys just keep bleeping over that, so I will ask it again. Perhaps someone will have an answer. From where does this "inherent right" or "fundamental right" arise? Guns are an invention. Before they were invented, no one considered this an "inherent right" of humanity. Then suddenly the gun existed, and we somehow magically developed this right to own this device - and no other device? We have no inherent right to own clothes, a house, a toilet, a knife, a television, or any of a thousand other inventions, but somehow, we "inherently" have a right to own a gun? What is it, specifically, about the human person and the gun that makes this one device, and no other, a "fundamental human right?"

Carp, didn't I say I was to old to fight or do much of anything?

If I say, "I don't care what the law says, I will kill my neighbor if they walk on my lawn!" and then follow it up with "I'm too old to actually do it, of course," I have no less forfeited my right to call myself a "law-abiding citizen." The implication is, were you able, you would do it. Sorry, Seer - but the "law-abiding gun owner" thing kind of went out the door with that claim, given that it has not been retracted and you continue to defend it. The only thing I know is you're too old to actually do it.

Yes it is possible that these brainwashed bots will be just as anti-freedom and totalitarian as you - yea...

"Brainwashed" because they disagree with you, Seer? I actually hear these kids making reasonable arguments - and expressing their tiredness of being at the receiving end of these attacks. My heart goes out to them. I certainly will no longer defend someone's right to "own a thing" over their right to "have a life."

[seer]

No - that one is based on an actual right.

But you have no problem taking away rights.

The percentage of households owning guns has actually shrunk over the years, but the total number of guns has skyrocketed, and about half of the guns are owned by about 3% of the population. Meanwhile, guns may have been "easier to get" back then, but they were not being "got" at anywhere near the current numbers. The total number of guns in the U.S. has increased mote than six fold since 1945, and doubled since 1968. In the same time period (1945-2018) population has only slightly more than doubled.

So the NRA is hardly failing. Their total expenditure is also increasing.

None of this changes my point, not only was it easier to buy firearms when I was young, it was much easier. It doesn't matter who or who isn't buying guns or how many, if the goal of the NRA was to make firearm ownership easier they are doing a terrible job! BTW you can thank Obama for a lot of the increase in gun sales:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi.../#728fa3a67f4e

I would have no problem removing a "right" that is not "fundamental" or "inherent" in any way. I notice you guys just keep bleeping over that, so I will ask it again. Perhaps someone will have an answer. From where does this "inherent right" or "fundamental right" arise? Guns are an invention. Before they were invented, no one considered this an "inherent right" of humanity. Then suddenly the gun existed, and we somehow magically developed this right to own this device - and no other device? We have no inherent right to own clothes, a house, a toilet, a knife, a television, or any of a thousand other inventions, but somehow, we "inherently" have a right to own a gun? What is it, specifically, about the human person and the gun that makes this one device, and no other, a "fundamental human right?"

If a criminal with a firearm came into my home to do harm, and I do not have a firearm to defend myself and family you have effectively removed my right of self defense. Unless you don't think I have a right to defend myself and family.

If I say, "I don't care what the law says, I will kill my neighbor if they walk on my lawn!" and then follow it up with "I'm too old to actually do it, of course," I have no less forfeited my right to call myself a "law-abiding citizen." The implication is, were you able, you would do it. Sorry, Seer - but the "law-abiding gun owner" thing kind of went out the door with that claim, given that it has not been retracted and you continue to defend it. The only thing I know is you're too old to actually do it.

I never said I would kill anyone Carp, why are you lying about me?

"Brainwashed" because they disagree with you, Seer? I actually hear these kids making reasonable arguments - and expressing their tiredness of being at the receiving end of these attacks. My heart goes out to them. I certainly will no longer defend someone's right to "own a thing" over their right to "have a life."

Right they seem reasonable because they agree with you....

[Juvenal]

fify

Please do not make substantive changes in others' posts.

[Juvenal]

Participants are asked to refrain from personal attacks.

[Juvenal]

I do believe that a repeal of the 2nd would be taking away a right seen by the founding fathers as existing prior to the amendment.

No amendment can remove the right to defend oneself, which is the actual right we're discussing when we speak of inherent or inalienable rights. The founding fathers' had no special wisdom to impart on this. It's not so much a right as a biological imperative.

But what's actually necessary for defense.

In my two flat in Chicago, it was lengths of lead pipe propped near the entryways.

In rural south Florida, I keep a shotgun at home and a rock hammer secured under the driver's seat in my car ... dual use, you never know when you're going to have to break out a window. I've trained with both of these.

[Jedidiah]

Please do not make substantive changes in others' posts.

This change was noted so there would not be any confusion. Sorry, that has been a standard free pass in the past. I will refrain in the future, just for you,

[Pluto]

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.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812246

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.

[Tassman]

Nope, I would not feel differently, any more than if someone purposely ran over a loved one, that I would want to ban cars. Inanimate objects do not do harm, people do.

if someone purposely ran over a loved one you wouldn't ban cars but you would ban certain people from having them, which is the argument for restricting gun ownership.

[seer]

if someone purposely ran over a loved one you wouldn't ban cars but you would ban certain people from having them, which is the argument for restricting gun ownership.

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

[Roy]

But it was actually easier to get firearms back in the day than now, ...

In the internet age you can buy a gun online from a private seller, pay by credit card and have them bring it to your house - all without getting out of bed. I doubt you could buy a gun without getting out of bed in the 1700s.

If you do get out of bed you can drive to a mall, buy a gun and get home in under an hour.

[seer]

In the internet age you can buy a gun online from a private seller, pay by credit card and have them bring it to your house - all without getting out of bed. I doubt you could buy a gun without getting out of bed in the 1700s.

Utter nonsense Roy, there are far more regulations to today, many more hoops to jump through. Even your own link shows that the vast majority of online sales require background checks. There were no background checks in my day. Like I said, when I was 14 I walked into a local gun store and purchased a Beretta 20 gauge shotgun without an adult with me.