Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>> "i was not talking about teachers shooting up schools" at that specific moment. You made a comment about the 'losers' are not marines...they are losers....but i was pointing out that those same losers would not be going against marines either, they would be going against teachers. you want me to go slower? YES i think there are possible scenarios that could result in the death of a student if teachers had guns, but that was not what i was referring to in that statement.

As far as the osaka massacre....8 people died, i think anyone involved in the massacre of 20 first graders in newtown would agree....8, though still awful, would have been preferred to 20. So your example not only showed me that he would not have successfully killed as many people without his guns, but also that the response to such massacres in other areas is not to have teachers carry, it is to hire trained guards.

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

 

Teachers who are trained in weaponry. Maybe you missed that as I was explaining the importance of CCW

10 people died actually. 8 children and 2 teachers. Way to show how awful you think it is by getting the body count incorrect.

He killed 10 people with a knife. That's still a considerable amount, and that is just one example. There are mass stabbings going on all the time in China and Japan. Does it really matter whether or not the body count is smaller?

And gun laws are amazingly strict in Japan. Teachers cannot carry guns in Japan. So your point that armed guards were used instead of CCW with Teachers is really moot.

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

 

One stupid strawman after another. Keep it rolling.

 

I am believe in natural rights. It was the basis for the American revolution. Not mention in my opinion the 9th amendment. What that protects is up for debate. Not the fact that they exist.

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

 

It was your opening statement. I pointed out that it is a false premise. Too bad if you don't like it.

You didn't even address a single thing I said.

Indeed, I did.

Asymmetric tactics and strategy have been used time and again throughout history to negate technological advantages in warfare. The Iraqis and Afghans, for instance, have been using such tactics to keep the US military bogged down in counter-insurgency operations for years and years. Like most gun phobics, you just base your argument on giant assumptions that have no basis in reality.

 

Of course there is "such a thing". It has been elucidated and elaborated upon by dozens of philosophers, most notably the founding fathers.

 

A "right" is just a philosophical construct, so there is no reason why we can't "have" them "without a legal framework stating such".

 

I would bet that you are unaware that hundreds of thousands (millions perhaps) conceal carry permit carriers remain armed in "gun free" zones every single day. I assure you that some are indeed teachers.

Given the absolute rarity of these individuals propensity to "snap", please help me understand why your awareness of this practice (the elimination of gun free zones) somehow makes the situation more dangerous.

.

 

Your civilians arms race scenario doesn't hold water. In the last 20 years the amount of firearms in civilian hands has increased dramatically. At the same time violence by firearm has decreased by one half.
Much like the OK Corral scenarios claimed by anti-gun activists when states were passing concealed carry laws, your scenario is much like that.

 

The bolded term cracks me up! So limiting the types of guns you can buy means that we want to remove guns from your possession.......and therefore, in essence anti-gun? Of course not, but you can slide down that slippery slope as much as you like!

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary for the security of our free States; why do we need any wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

 

All I got out of this was that you're scared of guns, you don't recognize how many lives are saved because of responsible gun ownership, and you're trying to justify your fear by tying it into various other wedge issues like marriage and abortion - the latter of which, as I understand your position, you don't even support the basic right to life of a child which provides for an interesting logical condtradiction in your own argument that you are so concerned about the potential dangers of children being around armed teachers yet you don't care if their own mothers kill them.

 

Thank you, interesting point.

What are the RATES though? You don't give that all important detail. Moreoever, you are assuming the data is occuring in a vacum of static circumstances, for instance , if crime went down because of largely uptrending economic figures, that could play a major role in itself. I take very little stock in digging up that kind of broad statistical information, it's shallow data. We really need to look at root cause, and sadly that puts a lot of the blame on casual gun owners. Sorry. It's starting to look like cigs, there is no safe gun. I understand that rubs a lot of people the wrong way but the reality that lax gun laws are partly to blame. I must also note that I have yet to see a recent gun law that I liked. Returning to my original premise, it should not be a right to have guns, this can not be substantiated; I am not trying to alarm people and say I'm for confiscation because to me it's beyond obvious that would never happen. Though asserting the 2nd means laws can not be forged to fit the times is also unacceptable.

 

Well, thanks for responding ....

Considering that I've shot off a few guns, shotgun, 38, 22, 40, and had a pellet gun practically strapped to me at all times as a kid, I'd say that I know enough about guns to not be afraid of them. Though, I've had guns drawn on me through out my life, almost all by friends who thought it was "ha ha" to do so vis a vis their parents fearful nature to leave guns ready for use.

It would be nice to assume your rosey scenario to be the case, and we can dig up ancedotal information to "prove" your claims but as a broader trend, US citizens are more likely to be armed and more likely to die by arms. Guns aren't helping. Sorry. Your claims lack the evidence. You claim I am an abortionist making a contradiction, but my point was that THEY (i.e. 2nd amendment backers) make the claim that the rules are written in stone but it's obviously only when it's conveinent to them. I think that all laws are subject to change when need be. I don't think I want to get into an argument about abortion but I don't believe that a human is a human until they are pretty far along in pregnancy....

 

and its up to the few to decide what the many in the county are smart enough use and what they aren't smart enough to use

sounds like a dictator way of thinking to me.

 

Funny, we have a teacher in the high school in this area that not only spent 20 years as a deputy sheriff but also 8 years as a Navy Seal, do you think he has enough trainning to handle the job??? There are a lot more teachers out there that are also qualified, do you think that if we took just a LITTLE time we might be able to find some??? But, my idea is to use the money we spend on intramural sports in the schools to fund the armed guards we place there. I believe the cost would completely be off set by doing so. What is the extra cost of the busses, teachers, coachs, uniforms, safty gear, equipment, etc, etc.???

 

I'm probably making a mistake by engaging you again but weren't you arguing that natural rights, as they are commonly defined, do not exist? If that is not the case then how do you define "natural rights"?

 

It might be nice if nuclear weapons were an impossibility, but the fact is that they exist. You government cannot get rid of them, and cannot stop other countries from building them. The USA needs nuclear weapons because certain other countries have, or may have, these same weapons.

The right to own a personal weapon, in a way, stems from the very fact that it exists. Because these types of weapons could potentially be used to deprive you of your liberty. The right to freedom is also the right (and obligation) to defend that freedom.

 

Some people are more consistent about it. For example, I support freedom of choice in all 3 avenues: guns, marriage, and abortion.

Constitutionalism is just as valid of an argument as any other -- whether or not people apply it consistently is indicative of the individuals involved -- not the principles themselves.

 

Okay, so in your opinion, what rights are granted by nature? Also, what is your definition of a 'right'?

 

So you've invented your own definitions where people suddenly have the natural right to enslave and/or murder other human beings. How do you expect to have an honest conversation on the topic when you adopt such an oddball definition to which nobody but yourself subscribes? In your world there is no such thing as a "right" at all, only privileges granted by your betters.

You've just created a strawman. Show me where I said that people have a natural right "to come into possession of any type of weapon of any capacity and without a background check."

Besides there is no point in arguing what is or isn't a natural right with you since you think natural rights are basically anything that someone can get away with. In that case you've already lost the debate since I can use your definition and say that anything physically possible is a natural right. Murder, rape, chattel slavery, all natural rights according to the definition that you've adopted. You've gone into silly overtime.