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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like the way Stephen Hawking put it, we may be smart enough to invent nuclear weapons, but it's highly suspect (in his eyes) if we are smart enough NOT to use them ...

    Pro-Gun "constituational right" sentiments are quaint (and perfectly fine), but honestly how are they really postulating a logical argument here? Falling back on the adage that "it's our constitutional right" doesn't hold water 'logically', I would surmise that most who employ this conveniently think differently when it comes to say marriage and reproductive rights. For example, marriage is "protected" by the constitution though, still leaving room for other "forms" of marriage. However religious, gun, and freedom loving Red States would love change the constitution to match their views that "marriage is [obviously] between a man and a woman". So logically there is no logic here at all, so why don't we all give it a rest and drop this obfuscation?

    I guess I don't see the logic behind why Americans "need" to be the most well armed population in the world per capita and the most likely to die by small arms (of the top 23 rich nations) standing behind an unlikely hypothetical scenario of disloyal governments and the King of England trying to take them away hundreds of years ago. On top of it, it was debated back THEN about whether or not they should bring more power to a weak nation (Articles of Confederation) or arm the population, and it ended up compromising in the way that it did. Plus, how is an armed society really going to protect itself from a modern military, plus we see societies evolving past that, control comes through the media, we as a people crave stability. Plus, why does this mean that Americans can have what they want and any number of them? Plus why does the 2nd amendment mean that we can't change regulation? I think you get the point, this reference to the constitution is clearly an obfuscation regardless if you are cognizant of that reality or sold on NRA rhetoric. One more thing, suggesting to arm teachers in schools illustrates exactly what people are not seeing; the overall picture or system of cause and effect. Looking at that example, as a system it has a high risk low reward potential; this rare school shooting event offset by all of the potential negative outcomes of armed teachers around children.

    btw, The "homosexual marriage" comment was not an analogy but a contradiction... A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. Perhaps for you this does not matter because you claim to be indifferent, but as for base, the pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gay marriage population it certainly 'holds water'.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    30,060
    Likes Received:
    2,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well the USSC seems to think it does.
     
  3. MissJonelyn

    MissJonelyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. It's not that people are smart enough NOT to use nuclear weapons. It's simply that Governments don't want to use it as a solution to all of it's problems. It would have been very easy to lay waste to North Korea in the 50's, Obliterate Vietnam in the 60's and turn Iraq into a crater in 2003. That wasn't an option because the thought of nuclear war is very troubling. It's what kept the Soviet Union and the USA from killing each other during the Cold War. This is no different from using a firearm. People don't want to have to use their firearm. The thought of taking of life is very troubling to most, but if people have to in order to protect their own life, they would.

    2. Marriage is not protected in the constitution. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It can be taken away from you. It's no different from voting. the reason why marriage is a privilege instead of a right is because Government is in the business of dictating who can get married, gay or straight. If you want to have the actual right to marry who or what you please, get the Government out of marriage.

    3. Are you aware of the amount of rights you have lost within the past 15 years and the amount of freedoms have been restricted from you? What exactly makes the scenario of a disloyal Government hypothetical and unlikely? The Government can actually keep you from renouncing your citizenship simply because you choose not to suffer the high tax burdens. That's only a step away from keeping you from actually leaving the country. In case you have forgotten, that is something only dictatorships endorse.

    4. Also, you asked how well is an armed population going to do against a military force. I don't think the Yanks during the American Revolution asked themselves that question when they started stocking arms against the Brits. Maybe they did. Who knows, but that's not the point. The point is that the American Revolution was successful. Do you understand what it was so successful? This was because the Yanks had access to the same type of weaponry as their enemies. You take that away from the civilian population and they will have no chance if a 2nd revolution has to take place.

    5. What is the high risk/low reward factor of arming teachers in schools? Have you ever taken an airplane to any part of the world before? Do they ever tell you who the air marshal is on that flight? What about an undercover detective? There is a reason why these things are kept secret. Who says that anyone has to know that the teacher is armed.

    6.What's with the stupid photo?
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your whole premise is faulty,It's our right REGARDLESS of the constitution...
     
  5. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    30,060
    Likes Received:
    2,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the usual Liberal way of thinking. If they don't like it, lets do away with it. To hell with what our Constitution or the USSC says. Lets amend the Constitution and change it. Guns has no place in today's society.
     
  6. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your characterization of all who support the 2nd ammendment as being pro-life and against gay marriage indicates your rather route-step bias.
     
  7. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Riiiiight, and what's your opinion about gay marriage ? Maybe we can amend the Constitution to suit your "conservative" needs. lol try a real response next time.
     
  8. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well thank you for your very truncated American response, I never heard of MAD. LOL. So, since you fell for my trap, we should not be concerned then about Iran or the DPRK acquiring nuclear wepeans right? Guns don't kill people , right ? Then don't have to use it ? Right? So again why is owning a gun a right ? And driving a car is a priv ? Honestly I feel like I'm wasting my time even responding to you...

    Think about how many bad scenarios could play out here.
     
  9. Toefoot

    Toefoot Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have your belief and I have mine. Constitution protects both.
     
  10. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If that isn't a clumsily parroted amalgamation of every gun grabber talking point, I don't know what is....
     
  11. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The right to arms didn't originate with the Constitution. It was a pre-existing right that the 2nd Amendment merely meant to protect from an overreaching gov't.

    What does any of this have to do with gay marriage? I support the right to arms and the right for consenting adults to marry whomever they choose. You start off your argument with a strawman.

    Finally, the picture you decided to post for whatever reason: Do you think that if the Redcoats were carrying semi-automatic rifles that the founding fathers would have hesitated for a second to procure those same rifles for themselves and their countrymen?
     
  12. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We've had "nuclear weapons" for decades and they've only been used in warfare twice. Hawkings may be quite the physicist (though he does not rise to a Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein), but he is clearly no historian or philosopher...

    Well, first we must establish certain axioms before we can even have a rational discussion. For instance, we are both operating under the assumption that our existence is axiomatic. We couldn't have a rational discussion on "gun policy" if you and I disagreed about our very existence, could we? Similarly, if we do not share certain moral or philosophical assumptions, for instance, that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness', then we cannot have a "logical" discussion. Thomas Jefferson used the term "self-evident" in order to establish as axiomatic the "inalienability" of our "rights". If you do not share his assumptions or axioms, then you might as well be throwing feces at one another because logical discussion is impossible.

    It certainly could be "logical" if we had a shared set of assumptions. Most Americans, for instance, agree that the US Constitution is a lawful document, therefore, if the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, citing the Constitution as being a valid law would be very logical.

    Blanket statements are not constructive.

    "Disloyal governments" are an "unlikely scenario"? Then how do you explain all the revolutions we've seen throughout human history?

    Can you please distill your argument to something more palatable than an interrogative-laced rant?
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; everyone specifically unconnected with militia service may be infringed upon.

     
  14. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Progressives have difficulty with the concept of natural rights......
    specifically, that they exist in the absence of the state....
    and I've long suspected the reasons for that
    are that their agenda requires constant and increasing infringement upon them.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It may be simply due to a lack of more consistent "social" justice available from the private sector on a for profit basis.

     
  16. MissJonelyn

    MissJonelyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,144
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Strawman

    Strawman

    Actually, yes. Driving a car is a privilege. No one has a right to an automobile or a license.

    And yet, you still did. Funny how that works. Also notice how you couldn't even address any of the other points. I guess they were too complex for you.


    Then you'll be neglecting all the good scenarios.

    That which is seen, and that which is unseen.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,318
    Likes Received:
    44,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sorry run that past me again - since when did people have inherent rights NOT encoded in law somewhere?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Do you have a "right" to own whatever kind of gun you want??
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,318
    Likes Received:
    44,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Visit another country and come back and tell me how you ensure these "natural rights" because the AmnestyInternational would really really really like to know....... Especially since they cannot get America to afford "natural rights" to people who are not citizens i.e. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Rendition etc etc etc
     
  19. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. Just as you have the right to engage in racist speech, or to write seditious literature, or to ingest drugs, or to have lots of sex, rights are rights, and we do not get to pick and choose which ones we recognize, as they are EQUAL RIGHTS.

    - - - Updated - - -

    They "have" their natural rights regardless. That's what you don't seem to understand!
     
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,318
    Likes Received:
    44,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So, you are happy with arming terrorists?? You are happy with arming criminals and mentally unstable and........................
     
  21. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, no.

    No again.
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    63,318
    Likes Received:
    44,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Then where are their "inherent natural rights"??
     
  23. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I don't follow this line of questioning.
     
  24. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bower is making an erroneous assumption that those outside of normal society are normal society. It is a strawman argument meant to distract from any reasoned discussion.
     
  25. The XL

    The XL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're the one who wants criminals to have a monopoly on force.
     

Share This Page