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

It's the epitome of a strawman. You attached an argument to other people that they never maintained. You somehow equated 2nd Amendment advocates with anti gay marriage and pro-life advocates.

You want me to explain to you why you shouldn't be able to remove other people's rights to self defense? How about because you're not God and you don't own other people? That seems like a pretty good one for starters. Where did you get this supposed authority to disarm people? Who bestowed you with that?

 

Right to bear arms is "quaint"?...what argument needs be postulated?

 

This seems weird to me, because (1) it shows that you are unable to just move to the meat of an argument and/or insist on commenting on EVERYTHING someone says (2) you are effectively trying to diminish Hawking to make your point. Note, Einstein and Hawking are both philosophers, you may not be aware of that fact but it's very true. I liked this comment, and I did not use it in an argument so why don't we just let it go?

For a second I was quite excited that you were actually formulating a coherient and logical response to my original thread; one that would force me to think heavily about my initial posits. Instead you are really just asserting that if *one* doesn't believe in the consitution as it stands now, we can't possibly have a discussion about changing it because somehow the details of said rights must be agreed apon in order to have this discussion. To hide gun laws behind that kind of reasoning is exactly the bane of rational discouse.

Wow, did you really just say that?

Wow, didn't think I'd have to flesh this part all out. I hate to tell you but a modern nation such as the US decided to mistreat it's citizens, your firearm is not what is going to change it's course. Think about modern forces for change, Solidarity Union, passive resitistance, Ghandi, protesting on a daily basis; to assert that the history of the 2nd amendment serves a very well established doctrine is highly questionable. Read my original thread and you will see I covered that aspect as well. Your negative quip is cute but you are no closer to debunking my arguments with it. Save that for someone who is more thin-skinned.

 

I will assume that wit you taking the "high ground" and resorting to name calling as a victory. Thank you.

 

When I call you names, you'll know it.

/ignore

 

No it is not. Though, this is probably why people liberally apply the word whenever possible without actually understanding it's subtlety. For example people use 'ironic' or 'literally' in similar fashion. See that in my last sentence?!! That is also how I used my example "gay marriage"; as an example of how 2nd amendment folks may want it both ways. See how that works ?!! Hence is my sentence about the words "ironic" and "literally" a straw argument? of course not, it is being used in an example and not as a basis of an argument. As a drinking game I should do a shot every time someone says 'strawman' incorrectly here. lol.

This is going in a weird direction, and you are turning it around on me, I already expressed my reasoning try answering that. What is really funny is that THIS is EXACTLY what a Staw Argument actually is. I bring up a discussion about Constitutional Law and you respond with comment about me "playing God" ? Really? Really? you can't make this stuff up. shakes head.

 

Oh I don't know, back the claim that it is an inherient right steeped in deep logical wisdom? maybe start there ?

 

How the great scientist Stephen Hawking and the right to bear arms are connected is beyond me.

 

A well regulated Militia of the United States has recourse to a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment; it is only gun lovers without a Cause, but maybe a profit motive who refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns who complain the most.

 

You mean like Britain?

The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.

But it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut. "There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the source. "In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they'll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there - and they are straight goers."

I had to wait longer than that to buy a firearm in CA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

 

So it's a "dumb scenario" to consider the ramifications and variables of putting firearms in public schools ? That the losses MAY (and most likely) out weigh the gains? THAT is your argument? Again, image 5 teachers shooting someone unlawfully and it's probably surpassed any gains. Also consider the cost and mental cost it carries as well ...

OK obviously you are the type of person who likes to fight first and think second. Not really interested in debating with you I think. I feel like I'm talking to a 14 year old who just learned about the Internets. lol

Lets stop this bullsh*t and get back on course. I argue that there is NO footing for the 2nd amendentment in terms of being a right in history or practice, care to argue for it aside from "it's written on paper" feel free to respond. Otherwise, go find someone else to take out your anger issues on.

 

That's because in history, most governments were tyrannical and feared the people which is why they disarmed them. The U.S. is unique in that the government fears the people. The right to own guns is part of that. The 2nd amendment does not preclude the ownership of guns it encourages it.

 

One reason we still have States is due to a separation of powers doctrine and why our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Like I told Rex, NYC, my wife picked up a MAC-90 at our local gun store 10 years back, threw it to her shoulder and said, "I like this, it fits". Now since you more than likely don't know what a MAC-90 is I'll explain a little. It's a civilian version of a former battle field weapon but is a semi-auto (self loader). It has a thumb hole stock, a 16 1/2 inch barrel, fires a .30 caliber slug that leaves the barrel at 2,425 feet per second, about the same as a 30-30 but without the recoil of a 30-30. It's a good deer rifle so tell me why you would denie her the right to have it?? Yes, NYC, it does come with a 5 shot clip. Does she NEED it??? NO!!! Does she have the right to own it?? YES!! And who are you to tell her she can't own it?? Could she replace it with...., hummm, ... say a Browning BAR .243?? Yes, but the BAR would weight twice as much. And if you don't either know what a BAR or a .243 is you have no business discussing anything about weapons because you don't understand or know anything about them.

 

And I suppose you also feel that sports programs are more important that the lives of the children because we could hire a retire police officer for every school in the nation for what we are putting out on the sports programs in the schools. "Oh, we would have a lot of children quiting school if we didn't have our sports programs". And if that's the only reason they are going to school then they should be out and learning what life is all about and what it takes to servive, you know, like working.

 

Hello ! Deep logical wisdom and "quaint" are terms not comprehended.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is.

 

Since the right is unalienable, and thus exists independently of the Constitution, which merely protects it from government infringement, you speak far more truly than you know.

Pure lunacy, since "other forms of marriage" aren't marriage at all.

That conclusion is not a logical consequence of anything you've presented, obviously.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

This issue was fully debated, and the reasons for the 2nd Amendment fully explained, by the men who wrote and enacted it (hint: they weren't using "it's in the Constitution" as a reason, because it wasn't yet). I would direct the OP to read them, and save us from having to repeat them all for him.

 

No, that's once again another strawman. Its a dumb scenario because your situation is completely limited. Ironically, you would formulate a limited situation when supposedly 'considering the ramifications and variables' of arming teachers with firearms.

I see you avoided my questions. So ask again: Do you have any understanding what CCW entails or how people are able to become CCW users?

Do you also really think that a principal or a district principal is going to allow a teacher on his or her property with a gun of said teacher has a history of violent behavior and hostility towards other people?

I also asked you when the last time you recall a report of a CCW permit holder just 'snapping' and killing a person he or she didn't like. Or just deciding to go on a killing spree just for kicks.

Feel free to ponder the answers to these important questions while you come up with your worse case scenario. As I am probably sure you will avoid the questions.

And from the sound of things, you never left the 'internets.' Your thoughts merely come from the ramblings of someone who doesn't know any better and couldn't take the time to stop using the computer long enough to discover how the world operates.

I love how you derail your own debates and then complain how its getting 'off track.'

Anyways, the right to own a gun stems from the development of dejure private property rights. This did not exist anywhere in the world before the late 1700s. Before then, you had kings and nobles who were able to take your property without due process.

Its more than just 'written on paper.' No one can take your rights or your property away. If you want to do that, you have to take said person to court.

 

So far with no carry in schools. Sandy Hook score on that issue. Criminal 26, citizens 0. Just keeping score for you.

 

Did you have an actual argument to present or are you just going to continue babbling like this?

 

....Which is.....come on, repeat after me..... the uninfringed natural rights of a free people to keep and bear arms.

 

There is no such thing as a "natural right" not even to eat sleep and eliminate

 

You are conflating the rationale for why it was put into the US Consitution. The history of this is mainly rooted in British history. It was considered a compromise between centralizing and making the US govt forces strong and a standing army. This was simply a compromise to appease the opposition of two schools of thought , with the former defined in the Articles of Confederation. Hence, not a factual or even proven method.