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

You're very wrong....the 'legal framework' is PROTECTING the rights

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
How does the second amendment protect the right to bear and acquire arms having nothing at all to do with militia?

 

NO NO NO NO NO....... So according to you, there is NO conceivable chance that things could go wrong because teachers and principals want to keep their jobs, always (mostly) care about their students, and can never break background checks? Hence, the very rare event of a school shooting should be worth this effort since there is no risk? To me, that sounds half-baked. Lets see, (1) You are ASSUMING that arming teachers would make a difference during a shooting, (2) that this is important enough to implement due to a few rare events. (3) That it is not even remotely possible that eventually mistakes will be made with CCW armed teachers etc. and an event will transpire? Again, THAT, is half-baked my friend. Simply put, YOUR scenarios are poorly thought out. Why? Because it's not a reasonable response, and even a few inncidents would wash out any gains. Again, it's high risk considering the low reward potential.

 

I never said there was a zero chance of risk. Even the best plan possible has some form of error, but that perfectly rational. This does not mean that this is good. It's merely a recognition that an error will occur and a sound policy needs to be constructed around this basis.

The solution you seem to be looking for seems to only exist in a computer simulation, where everything always goes the way you want it. All the time. That's not the real world.

I asked you many time when was the last time you have ever heard of a Carry and Conceal permit holder losing their minds and going on a killing spree? I've never heard of it happening, and I am willing to bet you never have either. I am not basing this on a premise of, 'because it never happened, it can't happen.' It is a fact that Carry and Conceal users are just as likely to get into firearm incidents as Police Officers. But you would trust a police officer with your children's safety, but not a CCW teacher. Why is this?

You cannot point out one example of anything being high risk, except for examples which you make up. Not to mention all you do is ignore questions I ask you. CCW users are trained to be responsible gun owners as well as screened for mental stability and/or competent. It's rather insulting to suggest that they would be so eager to be trigger happy simply because they are aggravated at the workplace.

 

I'm joining late in the game, but this quote seemed especially ironic to me considering the current situation in California....So.....Christopher Dorner was trained and screened......is that not just the PERFECT example of someone who at the time of gun purchase seemed perfectly safe, and has now gone off the deep end and already killed three people, and according to his 'manifesto' has a list of FORTY MORE PEOPLE???? please PLEASE tell me, how if a trained officer of the law is capable of this, why an armed teacher wouldn't be just as susceptible to a break down later on in life. He or she may not have problems at the time of the "screening" for mental stability (which by the way is complete crap, many people are not aware of their 'mental problems' until something triggers it....) but that DOES NOT mean that it won't happen. I am not saying that it WILL, but I think i just gave you a fabulous example of someone losing their mind and LITERALLY going on a killing spree.

 

OK I think I get the problem now. I am not saying it is a high risk directly per se, what I am saying is that any risk that hinders the effort of reducing rare gun crimes in schools is a total failure. Hence to me that is "high risk". For example, it is impossible guage mental health. That is a fact, because therapists can not disclose information about a patients intentions, and if they were made to do so, patients would not admit to their issues etc. or even go to sessions. Hence, because of a number of factors such as that, an incident in the schools would happen, though rarely, I fear less rare than school shootings. Though I would consider even one of these guns in schools ending up causing a problem a total failure of this ccw idea. Plus, we are assuming that would guarantee a better outcome. Which we do not know for sure. I really think that after contemplating this issue, the realities I've come to are more grounded in reality than trying to answer a rare event with an expensive, flawed, and risky solution.

 

Yet for this extremely rare event (which could be carried out by other means than guns), you want to take everybody's right to self-defense away. Sounds like a damn high risk for such low reward potential.

 

I can answer all of those in one swoop. The "majority of people reasoning" doesn't mean anything. There is logical and illogical, rational and irrational. If most people come to an irrational or illogical conclusion then that has nothing to do with natural rights. You're now confusing human reason, an objective and logical quality, with mob rule, which is practically the opposite of natural rights.

Take chattel slavery for instance. Back in the day a "majority of the people" would have screamed to the rafters that it was "right". That doesn't mean that it logically was. There is no rational justification for chattel slavery.

Now if you'd be so kind as to answer my question. I asked it in an effort to illustrate to you how natural rights do not rely on a vote which would have answered all of your questions in the process.

 

you answered your own question.

 

It doesn't since persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service are specifically covered by State laws regarding gun control meant, specifically, for those civil persons.

 

I have become numb to all the people who fight and need change for the Constitution. I lived my life respecting and working for the Constitution and BOR for all people equally (meaning less law and regulation) and now progressives and conservatives want to take mine away in the name of government knows best.

Not only with 2A but most aspects of life. The laws and powers of the Constitution/BOR are simple. People make them complicated and lack respect from fear and arrogance.

 

1.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Two mutually exclusive phrases, self explanatory.

 

How can two phrases in the same sentence be, mutually exclusive. Can you cite the rules of grammar which support that line of reasoning and point of view?

 

The use of nuclear weapons in any scenario would be incredibly stupid, and would have a very real capacity for escalation into a major exchange. In that respect nuclear weapons would not be a solution to any problem. Imagine, if you will, China's reaction to nuclear plumes blowing across their territory from N. Korea, and spreading lethal fallout indiscriminately. Nuclear powers may be stupid but, so far, they haven't been that stupid...

 

the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that.

you lost

- - - Updated - - -

you lost

 

Can you cite which rule of grammar claims absolute clauses have no bearing on absolute clauses in the same sentence?

 

Yes. As a SYSTEM of cause and effect, the numbers show me that more gun control, the RIGHT gun control will reduce said events. Note, you are changing the subject here, my previous comment you are responding to was about exemplifying how poorly thought out it is to arm teachers.

 

I didn't see where NYCmitch said he is trying to take everybody's right to self-defense away......I believe what he is opposed to, is the idea of having teachers with guns on school grounds. He's trying to say that THAT is not the best solution to the current problem. It appears that the right to bear is the only argument you have, which is irrelevant in this instance. He's not claiming all guns should disappear, which will never happen anyway, but guns are not allowed on school grounds as of now FOR A REASON, and this idea of arming teachers was a knee jerk reaction to the most recent tragedy and while it might be slight, there are some potential problems with the idea. If only ONE teacher had a melt down, or misused the firearm on school grounds (perhaps they 'thought' they saw a threat where there wasn't one, emotions are always higher when dealing with children) then the whole purpose of keeping our children safer has gone down the drain. That accident would never have been possible at the hands of said teacher if the gun hadn't been allowed on the property.
There are other potential solutions to this issue, but everyone is so wrapped up in their gun control debates that perspective has been lost.

 

I explained the grammar with the "restaurant / chef" example....
It's more than apparent you subscribe to the "repeat it often enough, people will eventually believe it" technique of disseminating propaganda....

It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tiresome, and NO ONE besides your gun grabber fellow travelers is buying it.

/ignore

 

The point of the two phrases is that a well armed citizenry is a necessity inorder to have a militia.

 

First we need to define our terms. You are using a definition of a "right" as "that which is permitted by nature". That makes no sense whatsoever nor have I ever seen anyone define that term in such a way. Nature permits you to eat your children, that doesn't mean you have the right to do so. Or do you maintain that you do have the right to eat your children?

I'd also appreciate it if you condensed your argument. I'm not about to answer a dozen questions, especially since most of them are just distractions or mischaracterizations. "Reason" is not opinion. Aristotle is not infallible.

Here's a basic rundown in an attempt to move this along since very little progress is being made here.

If humans have an inherent right (whatever right that may be) then it logically follows that they also have a right to attain the means with which to exercise that right. It doesn't matter if 9 out of 10 dentists agree that people don't have an inherent right to the means if it is counter to sound logic.

The right to arms is an extension of the right to self-defense, which is an inherent right of all humans. Apparently you hold the opposite position. You maintain that people have an inherent right to self-defense but have no right to the means to effectively exercise that right. How do you reconcile that exactly?