Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

And without rational basis.

 

Waiting for you to address post # 41

 

It doesn't say that either.

 

How would that prevent murder?

 

The court did. Thus, mine is a statement of fact.

 

No I didn't. People can keep and bear arms, as the Constitution says, as part of a well regulated militia and for purposes of defending a free state. What I said, in answer to your question, was that I would eliminate ALL private ownership of guns.

I know we can't do that right now. Many laws would have to be passed. And some SCOTUS decisions would need to be overturned. But that's as far as I would carry gun restrictions.

Obviously in Singapore there are almost no gun-related deaths. Only reason I mentioned this was because I was expecting this to go in the direction of HOW to eliminate guns (not like in Singapore, BTW...it's just an example). It's absolutely logical to infer that this is so because, in Singapore, if you are caught with a gun you get a public beating. So, in general, people don't HAVE guns. So it's unlikely guns will be related to any deaths. To ask me to demonstrate that is absolutely disingenuous.

Lucky for me, I don't have to demonstrate that because what happens in other countries is not the argument I am making (for now). My argument is simple: you can't kill people with a gun if you don't have a gun. Just like you can't drive a car to work if you don't have a car. And you can't eat pizza if you don't have a pizza. If you want me demonstrate any of those, that means you are not actually interested in serious a debate.

 

Exactly. It does protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated Militia. Which is a military scenario that you would have if the security of a free State were in danger. Nowhere does it say that Tom, Dick and Harry can carry a pistol around with no regulations and when there is no danger to security of a free State and in a non-military scenario.

 

Reduce it.

 

How?

 

Add this to your quote

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

 

No. That's why I said "general public"

 

Your words, just now, an admitted re-phrase of your original statement:

And thus, you would indeed deny the right to keep and bear arms to the general public, as this is, some how the "most reasonable" course of action.
Just like I said.
Note that you still have not demonstrated any rational basis for any of this.

Absent the demonstration of the necessary relationship between the laws of those countries and their lower rates of gun-related deaths, you present a post hoc fallacy.
You can either rest on your post hoc fallacy, or provide the required demonstration.
You decide, and let me know.

Your words:

Thus, what happens in other countries is the argument you are making
And so, the onus remains on you:
You can either rest on your post hoc fallacy, or provide the required demonstration.

No... its simplistic. Pre-pubescent, perhaps. Certainly sophomoric.
"You cant (x) if you don't have (x)" is always true; the fact it is always true does not, in and of itself, constitute a rational basis for the removal of (x).
Thus, you have not demonstrated any rational basis for the elimination of all private ownership of guns.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected much better form you.[/quote][/quote]

 

Provide a link. In the meantime, did you have anything to say about the post you quoted?

 

Ok. How about armored car security guards?

 

That's not what it says.
It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people, not the people in the militia, and not the well-regulated militia.
Your claim, above, has no rational basis.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected much better form you

 

I see you did not cite / copy / paste the language from Miller that supports you claim that Scalia said no to "military-style weapons".
So much for that false claim.
That leaves you with Heller
Cite / copy / paste the language from Heller that supports you claim that Scalia said no to "military-style weapons".

As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected much better form you

 

I did, In post #41.
Your rebuttal, which I already addressed, was, well, lackluster.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected much better form you

 

Wrong! A right to bear arms is not the same as some "right" to own weapons. Two completely different things.

I couldn't care less about the relation between laws of those country and lower rates of gun related deaths. Only thing I care about is the relation between lack of guns and lower rates of gun related deaths.

And asking to prove things that are obvious is definite proof that you have run out of arguments.

Of course it's true that countries that enact stricter and sensible gun laws see a reduction in gun-related deaths. But I don't even need that as an argument. All I need to point out is that people with no guns cannot commit gun violence. That alone makes my case.

On the other hand, clearly logical fallacies are not your thing. When legislation is enacted to reduce gun violence, and gun violence is, in fact, reduced... that's cause and effect. A post hoc fallacy is a completely different thing than what you seem to believe.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

So yep the purpose of being armed is to form the militia.

 

Sure. I said there are very qualified exceptions. If you live in the wilderness, and need to hunt to survive, you should be allowed to have a hunting rifle. Of course I would make them highly regulated. They would need to demonstrate proficiency, good mental state, no criminal background, ...

 

Good to know. Everyone draws the line somewhere. In your opinion, why is cash more worthy of armed protection than a mother transporting her children?

 

As a matter of fact, it does in fact say people in the militia. Not only a militia. A well-regulated militia. You bear arms in a military scenario. You don't bear arms against a rabbit. You don't bear arms against a shooting target. You don't even bear arms against somebody who is robbing your home. You only bear arms against a military enemy.

Many here will tell you that it's not a good idea to challenge my sig unless you yourself are armed with heavy research. If you are not thoroughly prepared, I would advise you first try to get prepared. But it's up to you.... Of course you can also try to get around the whole thing with ad-hominems like this one. But you still won't end up looking good.

If you think you can handle it. Go for it! The right to keep and bear arms refers to a military scenario. There is no other where this would apply. And even less so in the 18th century. There is absolutely no reference to any text of the period in which "bear arms" is not used in relation to the military. And, believe me... linguists have searched very thoroughly.

 

I'm quoting Scalia referencing Miller. Are you claiming Scalia lied?

That reaches the limit of ridiculous arguments that I can bear. This was a very casual comment I did "in passing". So it's not even worth wasting more time on it than I already did. I quoted Scalia mentioning Miller. That, and the quote you yourself posted is more than enough to show why I made it. Thank you...

 

I have as much of a drive to look up post 41 as you have to link to it. If have you any questions arguments against my position, you are welcome to make them.

Read my sig again: it clearly states (twice) that I do my research. I don't do yours.

 

Strawman. It has nothing to do with importance. Guarding cash is an intrinsically dangerous job. Transporting children is not.

However, if all firearms are eliminated, it might not even be necessary for security guards to carry them. In England, for example, most police officers don't carry firearms.