Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Feb 18, 2021.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why it is "keep" and "bear" arms.
    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.
    A claim for which you have no rational basis.
    If you have a point to make, that's your burden.
    You clearly know you cannot meet that burden.
    I accept your concession of the point.
    "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.
    Only if can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the two - which you cannot.
    Thus, you argue that correlation proves causation - a post hoc fallacy.
    Just like I said.

    As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, I expected more from you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many purposes for being armed - being part of the militia is one of them, and nothing in the 2nd exclusively ties the right to that purpose.
    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.
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Text:
    "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."
    Why do you chose to make a statement you know is not true?

    As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, I expect more from you
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't quoted -anything- that supports your claim that Scalia said no to "military-style weapons".
    Cite.
    Copy.
    Paste.
    If you have a point to make, that's your burden

    As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, I expect more from you
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aye - 15 minutes, perusing the Brady Center's website.
    Maybe 10.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  6. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absurd hypotheticals do not contribute to rational public discussion.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  8. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,585
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are certain circumstances under which the town drunk becomes a convicted feeling and no longer has gun rights.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you think that means? "Keep and bear arms" is inseparable, and is always 100% related to the military. The "keep" portion refers to "maintaining in good working order". And if you are part of a well regulated militia, people had a right to take their guns (usually provided by the state) home so they were handy and in good working order in case there was a surprise attack.

    Again, there is NO instance in which the expression "keep and bear arms" was used at the time other than in reference to a military scenario. Which means that the 2nd A was written to protect the right of the people to take their weapons home for military purposes, if an only if, they were part of a well-regulated militia. Because the official U.S. Army had very limited capabilities at the time, the "security of a free state" relied heavily on the type of militia that were "well regulated". They don't anymore, but they did at the time. Today, given that we have strong armed forces, the right to "keep and bear arms" as part of a well regulated militia is unnecessary. But it does exist. Just like a 3rd amendment right to deny a soldier quarters in your home exists, but is unnecessary.

    I would deny the general public the "right" to own guns. Trump was the only one who might have denied people the right to bear arms when he banned transgender people from the military. I'm curious. Did you complain when he did that?

    What I have demonstrated is that the 2nd A does not protect this "right".

    Wrong! I don't have to demonstrate a necessary relationship between not having a gun and not shooting a gun anymore than I would have to show a relationship between not having a car and not driving to work. Following Occam's razor this is clearly the relationship the requires the least assumptions. It is unreasonable to believe that you can shoot somebody with a gun if you don't have a gun. And even though there are experiences in countries that have seen a reduction in gun violence as a result of strictest gun laws, I don't even need to get into that because my position is the default position. Any court in the world would declare you not guilty for shooting a gun if you show that you didn't have one with you. And if you believe something different, you would need to start by explaining how that could even be possible.

    It's so ridiculous and so obviously disingenuous on your part that it's not even worth a comment. You seem very intent on playing this "disingenuous" game here and on other topics. Sorry but I'm not wasting my time on this.
     
  10. Indlib

    Indlib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absurd in what way? That you don't agree missile launchers should be covered under the right to bear "arms" or absurd that being covered, that our enemies would use it against us to strike from within?

    Or is it absurd that either of those two episodes of Seinfeld could be someone's favorite?
     
  11. Big Richard

    Big Richard Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2021
    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    2,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To much gun control already. “Shall not be Infringed”
     
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2nd A says that if you are part of a well-regulated militia that is necessary to protect the security of a free State, all ARMS (which are weapons of war) should be allowed. Rocket launchers, tanks, F-16s, nukes... EVERYTHING you can get your hands on. The only restrictions stated in the 2nd A are, 1- that you are part of a well-regulated militia, and 2- that such militia is necessary to protect the security of a free State. There is no restriction stated as to the type of "arms" you can "keep and bear"

    If anybody considers this absurd, they are saying that the 2nd A is absurd. I'm open to that possibility.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2021
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure you realize that the 2nd was written in 1788 and ratified in 1789.

    In that time period there were no rocket launchers, tanks, airplanes or nukes. I presume that you knew that before I mentioned it, so that makes your post laughable, but I'm trying not to.
     
  14. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 1st was ratified in 1791. In that time period there were no satellites, televisions, cell phones, high speed internet, etc...

    Does that somehow justify curtailing our right to free speech?
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  15. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fallacy: Non seq

    It says:
    "... the ight of the people to keep and bear arms..."
    It does not say
    "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms in service of the militia"
    You cannot demonstrate that the protection afforded to "bear arms " - that is the only USE of a firearms protected by the 2nd - is to serve in the militia.

    See... there is no right to serve in the militia.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It means you deliberately left something out when you said "A right to bear arms is not the same as some "right" to own weapons. Two completely different things"
    See, the 2nd also protects the right of the people to OWN weapons. Own AND use, both protected.
    That is, the ownership of a weapon is not ties to its use; you have the right to own a weapon, even if you never use it.
    You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
    You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
    Nonsense. No one had he right to serve in the militia , and when serving in the militia, you had no right to bear arms - your use of your weapon was fully and completely subject to the chain of command the rules of land warfare.
    This can only be true if you can demonstrate your two claims, (1) and (2) above to be true.
    Which you cannot do.
    Yes,. And you have no rational basis for doing so.
    No. You have stated your opinion; you have not demonstrated your opinion to be fact.
    See (1) and (2) and (3) , above.
    From this point, you do nothing but shirk you responsibility to demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim between the laws in the whatever countries you mean and their supposedly lower rates of gun related violence -- "if you have a point to make, that's your burden" -- because you know you cannot do so.
    And thus, you choose on rest on a post hoc fallacy.
    Speaks for itself.

    As you took a a long time to research the validity of your argument, I expected better.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is an outright lie.
    2A, text:
    “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.”
    Thus, the 2nd says no such thing.

    As you took a a long time to research the validity of your argument, I expected better.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
    Eleuthera likes this.
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There weren't any Glocks or M16s... or even double barrel shot guns either. There were single shot muskets and other relatively crude firearms. Are you arguing that ONLY those are protected by the 2nd A?
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2nd A only says "bear arms". It says nothing about "owning weapons". I didn't leave it out. The 2nd A did.

    Linguists have already proven it. https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment/

    I see. So you believe that if you are serving in a militia your 2nd A rights can be infringed Priceless!

    Great! That means my case is made.

    It's a process similar to the one science uses. You issue a hypothesis (not strictly speaking, but good enough for the purpose of this discussion) in the form of a prediction: "enacting stricter gun laws will reduce gun deaths". You enact stricter gun laws (experiment), and if the prediction comes to fruition, your hypothesis passes. You can issue many more predictions (hypothesis) such as: "[ceteris paribus] an industrialized nation with lax gun laws will have more firearm related events than industrialized nations with more stringent gun laws" (easy once you compare the U.S. with other industrialized nations). If the predictions are confirmed (actually falsification process would be required in science, but this is good enough for a political forum), the certainty in the veracity of the hypothesis increases. There is a level of certainty in this hypothesis (my examples being part of it) that is enough to make it more reasonable to hold that it's the default position, because the burden of proof has been met.

    Unfortunately, at this point it's evident that the above might be too... uhm... "academic" (shall we say so as not to get the mods all jumpy?) for you. But since you started the thread, it was worth the try.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the difference? Just... saying "says no such thing" will not cut it. You need to show what the difference is (other than the order of the words)

    Again, here is my statement " if you are part of a well-regulated militia that is necessary to protect the security of a free State, all ARMS (which are weapons of war) should be allowed."

    What is the difference? Show it! And do be careful. I DID, in fact (as promised, and as I ALWAYS do) research the validity of my arguments. And I do suggest you do the same before responding. Otherwise it would be no fun.

    BTW, there IS an alternative valid interpretation. But that one is even worse for gun advocates.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only people unfamiliar with Heller argue this.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statement, above is a lie, as you know it also say "keep"
    "Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.
    Thus, the 2nd protects the right of the people to OWN weapons. Own AND use, both protected.
    That is, the ownership of a weapon is not tied to its use; you have the right to own a weapon, even if you never use it.
    Thank you for citing someone's opinion, and your concession that -you- cannot demonstrate your claims to be true.
    No, you don't "see" - you deliberately misunderstood the argument, and then tried to pivot away from it.
    Fact remains:
    - No one had the right to serve in the militia
    - When serving in the militia, you had no right to bear arms - your use of your weapon was fully and completely subject to the chain of command the rules of land warfare.
    Thus, your claim that "if you are part of a well regulated militia, people had a right.." cannot be true.
    You have no rational basis for this statement.
    You claimed cause and effect - onus lies fully with you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause and the effect
    Instead, you rest on a post hoc fallacy.
    None of your blahblahblah ever can, or ever will, negate this.

    As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The difference in the text of the 2nd and the text of your claim is clear and obvious:
    Your claim:
    The 2nd A says that if you are part of a well-regulated militia that is necessary to protect the security of a free State, all ARMS (which are weapons of war) should be allowed.
    Actual text.
    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
    Thus, you deliberately misstated the text of the 2nd.

    As It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  24. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't tell me that. Tell it to the poster I'm responding to. They're the one who seem to be arguing this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too easy to debunk:

    It can mean to provide maintenance. To maintain in good working order. As in Housekeeper, that is the person that provides maintenance to a house. Or groundskeeper, which is the person who provides maintenance to the grounds. Even today, if you have a "well kept house", it means that it's clean and well cared for. A "well kept" rifle is also clean, well cared for and in good working order. It can also mean to "possess", or to "have on hand". This could happen because they are owned, or assigned, or any other reason....

    Looks like you have never rented or leased a car, have you?

    I didn't cite anybody's opinion. I said linguists proved it. In the link I sent they used Corpus Linguistics to do this. A searchable database that compiles just about every document in English from the era, in laws, literature, articles, ... everything. It wasn't difficult at all to prove this.

    But, of course, it's even less difficult for you to deny what you can see with your own "lyin'" eyes. So... go right ahead. Don't let facts get in your way.

    You still claim that the right to bear arms can be infringed when you are part of a militia. I'm sure you'll get push back from ALL sides about that claim. So, since this is a self-defeating argument, no more needs to be said.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2021

Share This Page