User Tag List

Page 50 of 53 FirstFirst ... 4047484950515253 LastLast
Results 736 to 750 of 781

Thread: 58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

  1. #736
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Like the XFL.
    Two things:
    1.) XFL comment: great.
    2.) Would you be willing to engage in a reasonable, logical conversation about guns/bans/etc?

    I like and appreciate your approach to discussion (as noted once before when I discovered you were a paralegal). I think that two reasonable people (such as you and I) could have a productive and progressive conversation.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  2. #737
    Over 500 post club DavidK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan, US
    Posts
    508
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked 231 Times in 161 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    54847
    Quote Originally Posted by CherubRam View Post
    After the Las Vegas shooting people call for ban on guns.

    If you take away everyone's gun, then people will resort to home made guns and bombs.

    The real problem is the people in the world.
    Conservatives like this argument when it comes to guns. They dismiss the same argument, however, when applied to other things. Like abortion.

    If you take away the right to an abortion, women will resort to back alley abortions. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy.

    As a Christian, I acknowledge that the real problem is really the sin resident in the heart of every one of us. There is a remedy for that, but God, in His wisdom, made it a voluntary remedy until the end of this age.

    So that leads to the question of how do we mitigate, as much as we can, the destruction that can be unleashed by that sin? The answer is that we enact laws in an attempt to balance freedom and security.

    As neither a conservative nor liberal, I reject the argument that says if we enact laws there will just be people who break them. It doesn't hold up in regards to abortion. It doesn't hold up in regards to gun control. Regulation will not eliminate all evil, but it is our job as a society to find the right amount of regulation that will limit it as much as possible.
    Maranatha!

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DavidK For Your Post:

    CherubRam (March 8th, 2018),Town Heretic (March 8th, 2018)

  4. #738
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    Two things:
    1.) XFL comment: great.


    2.) Would you be willing to engage in a reasonable, logical conversation about guns/bans/etc?
    Sure. I've tried a few times, but mostly I'm met with institutionalized paranoia, the peculiar notion that rights aren't subject to reason, and arguments from tradition.

    I like and appreciate your approach to discussion (as noted once before when I discovered you were a paralegal).
    Worse, I am and have been for many years an actual lawyer (nothing against paralegals, but if I'm going to pass the Bar, pay for the license and suffer the CLE, I'm taking full credit, or blame, depending on your perspective).

    I think that two reasonable people (such as you and I) could have a productive and progressive conversation.
    I don't see why not, though I'm only here now and again, as my third act educational practice keeps me away and busy these days.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    jsanford108 (March 8th, 2018)

  6. #739
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,252
    Thanks
    2,448
    Thanked 4,448 Times in 2,632 Posts

    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2135005
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post

    I don't see why not...
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    ...though I'm only here now and again, as my third act educational practice keeps me away and busy these days.



    I'd be happy with an occasional all thoughts or all things Jack update at that (been enjoying your teaching experience posts also)!
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  7. #740
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,252
    Thanks
    2,448
    Thanked 4,448 Times in 2,632 Posts

    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2135005
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    Conservatives like this argument when it comes to guns. They dismiss the same argument, however, when applied to other things. Like abortion.
    Apples/Oranges. It is ALWAYS wrong to abort, even if a deemed necessary evil. It is NOT always, (and rarely) evil to own a gun. When I carried one in Alaska to protect kids from being mauled, it was a 'good' thing (unless you hug grizzly bears).

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    If you take away the right to an abortion, women will resort to back alley abortions. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy.
    How does ▲this▲ mesh with ▼this▼?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    As a Christian, I acknowledge that the real problem is really the sin resident in the heart of every one of us. There is a remedy for that, but God, in His wisdom, made it a voluntary remedy until the end of this age.
    I don't understand how there can be two 'real problem.' There is a verb/plural disagreement. I agree with the latter that sin is always our real problem, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    So that leads to the question of how do we mitigate, as much as we can, the destruction that can be unleashed by that sin? The answer is that we enact laws in an attempt to balance freedom and security.
    As long as they don't inadvertently kill somebody else. The media isn't going to cover a group of mauled Alaskans, like a school shooting. If they did, bear maulings aren't going to go up because of the media-attention. Bears aren't into copy-cat or attention grabbing media. We've had school shootings. It is MORE about who is reporting what and why. I'd even suggest a HUGE part of this has to do with 'responsible' journalism vs irresponsible journalism. It 'used' to be, that journalism would take great care and concern before it passed off anything. Some 'rags' started bucking that system. Talk shows and circuses haven't led to good things in our society. I'd suggest, more than guns, that they are blatantly more responsible for school shooting in this country. The pen, obviously, is mightier than the sword (gun) in this country. Guns deaths are the by-product of irresponsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    As neither a conservative nor liberal, I reject the argument that says if we enact laws there will just be people who break them.
    Sorry. I can't make a comment here, just cannot believe you ACTUALLY reject we have lawbreakers. Caught me WAY off guard!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    It doesn't hold up in regards to abortion.
    See... this is part of that. I 'think' you needed to think harder before posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidK View Post
    It doesn't hold up in regards to gun control. Regulation will not eliminate all evil, but it is our job as a society to find the right amount of regulation that will limit it as much as possible.
    The problem is that you've both posted why there should and shouldn't be laws about guns in the same breath.
    For something so important, you really need to be cogent and well-thought-out on these important matters, David. I think you meant to say something and hopefully something important, but you missed that calling. As a Christian, I challenge you to seek a matter out and be strong and proactive for Christ over that matter.

    I think, for instance, if TownHeretic and I had the time, he'd take one side and I'd take the other. I would even acquiesce that someone doesn't need an AK-47 but if someone can show a need for one, they need to have that availability (I'm thinking my Alaska days again). Government cannot take away my rights, even if well-intended, if those intentions damage something else important we are guaranteed as US citizens. We CAN come up with proactive ways to stop school shootings. I as a parent 'can' keep my kids from being shot in schools. Most of them are legal and Constitutional. I'd expect the same from another coming up with 'suggestions.' -Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    jsanford108 (March 8th, 2018)

  9. #741
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Sure. I've tried a few times, but mostly I'm met with institutionalized paranoia, the peculiar notion that rights aren't subject to reason, and arguments from tradition.

    Worse, I am and have been for many years an actual lawyer (nothing against paralegals, but if I'm going to pass the Bar, pay for the license and suffer the CLE, I'm taking full credit, or blame, depending on your perspective).
    My bad. I could not recall if you had taken the BAR or not, so I played it safe.

    I don't see why not, though I'm only here now and again, as my third act educational practice keeps me away and busy these days.
    In order to begin, I will just say that I stand in defense of the 2nd Amendment, as it is written and intended by the authors of the Constitution.

    What recommendations would you suggest regarding firearm? What are your reasons for concluding that these recommendations would aid the country, and what do you think the long term effect of such legislation would be?

  10. #742
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    My bad. I could not recall if you had taken the BAR or not, so I played it safe.
    No harm done, just clarifying the point.

    In order to begin, I will just say that I stand in defense of the 2nd Amendment, as it is written and intended by the authors of the Constitution.
    I'd have to ask what you mean by that. For instance, a good part of the inclination of the Founders dealt with a militia that was necessary absent a standing army, an army which we now have. That coupled with state guards eliminated that as a serious advance. Another reason protecting the right to bear arms was that a great many people relied upon them for food and living, along with protection along frontiers. Those are largely gone as well.

    That said, I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner. What I'm not is someone who believes any right is without restraint or should be. Weapons have been designed with capacities that pose a demonstrable threat to public safety and the Court that has largely affirmed and protected a great deal of what's out there has also recognized our larger public interest in restricting certain weapons. I simply think they've thrown to narrow a net.

    What recommendations would you suggest regarding firearm? What are your reasons for concluding that these recommendations would aid the country, and what do you think the long term effect of such legislation would be?
    I support single shot weapons, breech loaders and bolt action rifles. I oppose clip loaded weapons and any aid that would significantly increase times for loadings, like speed loaders for the gray area revolvers. The reasons are straight forward enough: the weapons I promote and would protect are in complete accord with those the Founders/authors of the right believed capable of satisfying the right to bear arms. They're even better. What they aren't and won't accomplish that weapons I oppose can is the swift killing of large numbers of people. I think those weapons pose a clear and demonstrable danger to the republic and I note that where the sorts of laws I favor are in play there is a dramatic reduction in both mass shootings/murders and gun violence, and that this promotes a more pressing public good.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. #743
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964
    I am going to address your points somewhat out of order, but that is to demonstrate where we agree vs disagree. So, forgive any confusion that may result, for that fault would be my own.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That said, I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner. What I'm not is someone who believes any right is without restraint or should be. Weapons have been designed with capacities that pose a demonstrable threat to public safety and the Court that has largely affirmed and protected a great deal of what's out there has also recognized our larger public interest in restricting certain weapons. I simply think they've thrown to narrow a net.
    I agree that any right comes with restraint. But, that exists already when it comes to guns. For example, a civilian cannot own a fully automatic weapon without prior training or a permit, which is quite costly and hard to obtain. A civilian cannot own military grade weapons, such as an M16, SAW, etc.

    It is also illegal to point a gun at a person without due cause. One cannot fire a weapon within city limits, residential neighborhoods, etc. The list of "common sense" laws and regulations goes on.

    Weapons only pose a threat to public safety in the hands of a person who, unarmed, is a threat to public safety.

    What weapons would you suggest restricting, that are not already regulated/restricted?


    I'd have to ask what you mean by that. For instance, a good part of the inclination of the Founders dealt with a militia that was necessary absent a standing army, an army which we now have. That coupled with state guards eliminated that as a serious advance. Another reason protecting the right to bear arms was that a great many people relied upon them for food and living, along with protection along frontiers. Those are largely gone as well.
    I simply mean that I agree with the Second Amendment as it was intended by the authors of it. Such defenses of it can be found in various letters and articles by the founding fathers. They adamantly defend the right to defend oneself against any threat to ones' life and liberties.

    The founders did not infer that a militia was only necessary absent an army. The people, and their ability to form a militia, is what safeguards the people against tyranny. A standing army would make no difference in a tyrannical state. In fact, it would be against the people.

    The additional reason of firearms being a provision for food/protection (presumably against wildlife) is also false, as no such clarification is given. It is expressly about the preservation of life from a threat, with heavy inference on human threat, such as tyranny or malicious individual. There is no mention of food, hunting, etc.


    I support single shot weapons, breech loaders and bolt action rifles. I oppose clip loaded weapons and any aid that would significantly increase times for loadings, like speed loaders for the gray area revolvers. The reasons are straight forward enough: the weapons I promote and would protect are in complete accord with those the Founders/authors of the right believed capable of satisfying the right to bear arms. They're even better. What they aren't and won't accomplish that weapons I oppose can is the swift killing of large numbers of people. I think those weapons pose a clear and demonstrable danger to the republic and I note that where the sorts of laws I favor are in play there is a dramatic reduction in both mass shootings/murders and gun violence, and that this promotes a more pressing public good.
    There are several good points to address here, so I will break them down one at a time; akin to how one would break down a gun.

    1.)"I support single shot weapons, breech loaders and bolt action rifles. I oppose clip loaded weapons and any aid that would significantly increase times for loadings, like speed loaders for the gray area revolvers." : I appreciate that you acknowledge revolvers as a gray area. Most people don't seem to realize the irrational nature of their anti-assault style arguments, and how many of the same stats can apply to revolvers.

    2.)"The reasons are straight forward enough: the weapons I promote and would protect are in complete accord with those the Founders/authors of the right believed capable of satisfying the right to bear arms." : This part is untrue. Single shot weapons would not protect against a tyrannical government, which possesses fully automatic weapons. If three men break into a house, then a single shot weapon, or any weapon without semi-auto capabilities, is good only in a situation of tactical advantage, not in normal malicious circumstances.

    This also ignores the fact that those who commit crimes are uncaring of what is legal/illegal. By limiting the accessibility of a law-abiding citizen to less effective guns, the criminal has a significant and mortal advantage over the citizen.

    So, these reasons are in disagreement with the intent and rights outlined by the Founders.

    3.)"They're even better." : Well, not statistically. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    4.) "What they aren't and won't accomplish that weapons I oppose can is the swift killing of large numbers of people." : Snipers can eliminate high numbers with bolt-action rifles. An effective killer is not limited by instruments. We see excessive numbers stabbed by terrorists, who cannot access guns. We see vehicular manslaughter, such as the racist at that rally. The Boston bombers did not use guns. Mass murder is not curbed by limiting weapons; in fact, statistically, it is aided by it.

    5.)" I note that where the sorts of laws I favor are in play there is a dramatic reduction in both mass shootings/murders and gun violence, and that this promotes a more pressing public good. " : Would you mind providing reference to such circumstances? It would definitely aid your argument.


    My position is that gun regulation, as it exists, is fine. In fact, we see a correlation in the increased number of guns and a decrease in crimes.

  12. #744
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    I agree that any right comes with restraint.
    So far so good.

    But, that exists already when it comes to guns.
    I'd agree and have recognized that we have laws relating to them. I believe that technology has made it necessary to revisit them for reasons touched upon in my last and set out in particular over the course of this thread.

    Weapons only pose a threat to public safety in the hands of a person who, unarmed, is a threat to public safety.
    Well, I'd agree that the sort of person who becomes a mass shooter/murderer is a dangerous person in general and that what particular sorts of guns afford them is the ability to be that danger to a greater number of people.

    What weapons would you suggest restricting, that are not already regulated/restricted?
    It's easier to tell you, as I did in my last, what I support. Anything that isn't in that group is something I'd remove from the stream of commerce. I support breech loaded shotguns and bolt action rifles. Single shot pistols as well, though I'm open to discuss revolvers. Nothing loaded by clip. Nothing semi or fully automatic. No implement in support designed to accelerate loading and firing, as with speed loaders and bump stocks.

    Such defenses of it can be found in various letters and articles by the founding fathers. They adamantly defend the right to defend oneself against any threat to ones' life and liberties.
    And the weapons I support are better at doing everything the Founders found sufficient to the task.

    The founders did not infer that a militia was only necessary absent an army.
    They didn't have to. That was literally the reason for a militia. It wasn't inferred. It was set out directly. The reason that it was "necessary for a free state" was because we lacked a standing army.

    The people, and their ability to form a militia, is what safeguards the people against tyranny.
    It really doesn't and hasn't. Historically, once we had an armed forces those (men and women involved) safeguarded us and the Constitution they were and are sworn to defend.

    A standing army would make no difference in a tyrannical state. In fact, it would be against the people.
    A mob of people with AR 15s wouldn't make a real difference in a firefight with those armed forces.

    The additional reason of firearms being a provision for food/protection (presumably against wildlife) is also false, as no such clarification is given.
    Well, you can't say "also false" unless you demonstrate something is necessarily false that precedes it. I advance that you haven't. But beyond that, I didn't say the clarification was given. I said among the reasons why the right was important was the empirically verifiable fact that much of the population used it for exactly those purposes. They needed to be able to raise a citizen army. They understood those citizens used those arms to provide food, livelihood, and protection for themselves as well. Every single point in that is true. No falsity involved in any part of it.

    It is expressly about the preservation of life from a threat, with heavy inference on human threat, such as tyranny or malicious individual. There is no mention of food, hunting, etc.
    The most important thing to the nation at the point of framing was the preservation of that nation in the absence of a standing army. No doubt about it. But if that's the resting point then the right has outlived its usefulness, because it is no longer necessary for the security of our free state. But I'd argue that there are other reasons that are legitimate ones and warrant its continuation. I don't recall anything about malicious individuals in the right though, to echo your approach.

    There are several good points to address here, so I will break them down one at a time; akin to how one would break down a gun.

    1.)I appreciate that you acknowledge revolvers as a gray area. Most people don't seem to realize the irrational nature of their anti-assault style arguments, and how many of the same stats can apply to revolvers.
    Absent speed loaders a revolver isn't really that much more dangerous, except in terms of concealment, than a double barrel shotgun.

    2.)"The reasons are straight forward enough: the weapons I promote and would protect are in complete accord with those the Founders/authors of the right believed capable of satisfying the right to bear arms." : This part is untrue.
    No, it's literally true that the weapons I support are more capable than the weapons in existence and which the Founders found capable of serving the purpose of fulfilling the right. The militia no longer being necessary for the defense of our nation, those are the only remaining reasons that should compel, along with the simple right to own property.

    Single shot weapons would not protect against a tyrannical government, which possesses fully automatic weapons.
    Nothing in that right, to follow your own way of examining it prior, speaks to the idea of overthrowing our government. In point of fact, though there was some mistrust among some Founders (and remember that we had more of a compact than what our evolving Union would become by a century later) the idea wasn't to fight among ourselves but to repel invaders, like the British.

    "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."

    The fact is that once we achieved that standing army, again, that existence was no longer necessary. And there's no real reason to suggest some inherent noble purity and protection vests in a militia in any way that it cannot or should not as readily vest in our armed forces. There's a better argument to the contrary.

    If three men break into a house, then a single shot weapon, or any weapon without semi-auto capabilities, is good only in a situation of tactical advantage, not in normal malicious circumstances.
    If fifty men rush your house it won't matter. What I mean is that once we begin manufacturing scenarios, hypotheticals, that will largely never happen to justify the existence of a thing that is increasingly involved in non-hypothetical situations ending in the deaths of scores of people, there's not much real argument going on.

    This also ignores the fact that those who commit crimes are uncaring of what is legal/illegal.
    It really doesn't. It addresses ease of access, which goes to importation, manufacturing, and legal possession. Impact the supply and you impact the use.

    A great many weapons used in criminal enterprise are stolen from people who possess them legally. And most of the worst mass shootings are committed by people who aren't actively engaged in any criminal enterprise beyond the one we come to when their purpose in the previously legal accumulation of weapons is revealed.

    By limiting the accessibility of a law-abiding citizen to less effective guns, the criminal has a significant and mortal advantage over the citizen.
    No. We have police forces and weapons sufficient to safeguard ourselves and property from the rule of what and how criminals use weapons outside of their use on one another in relation to the more organized elements and enterprises.

    3.)"They're even better." : Well, not statistically. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
    They are literally better weapons, and faster firing ones. The weapons of that day were flintlock pistols and muskets. And your link was to the opening page of a voluminous report. Better for you to quote some portion of it so I'll know what you mean to suggest by it.

    4.) "What they aren't and won't accomplish that weapons I oppose can is the swift killing of large numbers of people." : Snipers can eliminate high numbers with bolt-action rifles.
    First, a sniper is just someone in hiding with a gun. It doesn't follow that they're particularly skilled. And while they certainly could kill a number of people, the difference between that potential and someone with a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon is profound, which remains the point.

    An effective killer is not limited by instruments.
    That's a peculiar statement, because someone is not an effective killer until the act is completed. It's a bit like saying a pregnant woman is not deterred by contraception.

    We see excessive numbers stabbed by terrorists, who cannot access guns.
    We've seen some stabbings in various places where guns aren't as readily available and some where they are. What we haven't seen is anything like the death count by those stabbers that we would see or expect with semi and fully automatic weapons, so it really supports my point.

    We see vehicular manslaughter, such as the racist at that rally.
    We've seen some instances of that, to be sure. What we haven't found in every other industrialized Western democracy is people simply shifting means. For the most part that's understandable, because there really isn't as easy an alternative when it comes to killing a lot of people quickly.

    The Boston bombers did not use guns. Mass murder is not curbed by limiting weapons; in fact, statistically, it is aided by it.
    In order, of course not. And no one is suggesting that ending the legal possession of the sorts of weapons I'm speaking to will end violence or every sort.

    To the second, what is clear is that it will significantly impact violence of this very particular and lethal sort and that in those Western democracies I've spoken to you haven't found the death toll simply shifting into another category. And given the statistically dramatic difference between them and us, for all our guns, the argument that eliminating some guns raises the danger or facilitates it is simply wrong.

    5.)" I note that where the sorts of laws I favor are in play there is a dramatic reduction in both mass shootings/murders and gun violence, and that this promotes a more pressing public good. " : Would you mind providing reference to such circumstances? It would definitely aid your argument.
    I've repeatedly set out links to figures relating to the literally dramatic disparity per citizen in this country and the Western democracies noted above and prior. I've also set out links that examine an equally damning statistical difference between states here with strong gun laws and those without them in terms of gun deaths and injuries per 100k. The worst have the weakest and the best the strongest. And the disparity runs to double digits.

    My position is that gun regulation, as it exists, is fine. In fact, we see a correlation in the increased number of guns and a decrease in crimes.
    Well we've seen crime in general decrease as the Baby Boomers age, but then the point of eliminating certain particular classes of weapons is to impact gun violence and mass shootings and not as some larger solution to criminal enterprise. Also, we have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth and yet are the least safe among our Western cousins.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  13. #745
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964
    I provided a summary at the end of this reply, to better grasp the main points that I made. I will try and response to only main antagonistic posits from here on out. I find that my detail oriented nature ends up generating long replies, which can be obnoxious to both myself and others.

    If there are certain points that you wish me to address, which I do not, please let me know. I will attempt to keep my responses much shorter, more direct, and focused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's easier to tell you, as I did in my last, what I support. Anything that isn't in that group is something I'd remove from the stream of commerce. I support breech loaded shotguns and bolt action rifles. Single shot pistols as well, though I'm open to discuss revolvers. Nothing loaded by clip. Nothing semi or fully automatic. No implement in support designed to accelerate loading and firing, as with speed loaders and bump stocks.
    Are you also for stricter regulations on knives, which account for a large number of violent assaults?

    And the weapons I support are better at doing everything the Founders found sufficient to the task.
    The Founders also allowed citizens to have cannons, fifteen shot pistols, volley guns, etc. Do these seem comparable to the simple weapons that you suggest? I would argue "no."


    They didn't have to. That was literally the reason for a militia. It wasn't inferred. It was set out directly. The reason that it was "necessary for a free state" was because we lacked a standing army.
    But the second amendment is not about a militia, it is about arming the people.

    "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." It does not say anything about a militia being present or not affecting the arming of the People.

    To argue that the arming of the People was contingent upon the fomentation of a militia is directly contradictory to both the amendment, and the intentions of the Founders.


    It really doesn't and hasn't. Historically, once we had an armed forces those (men and women involved) safeguarded us and the Constitution they were and are sworn to defend.
    So, you would say that a government, becoming tyrannical, is impossible, in the US?

    If so, you are ignorant of reality. This has occurred historically; usually right after extreme gun control, comparable to what you suggest. Armies are not loyal to the people; they are loyal to the government.

    A mob of people with AR 15s wouldn't make a real difference in a firefight with those armed forces.
    But they would stand more of a chance than with simple single-shots.


    Well, you can't say "also false" unless you demonstrate something is necessarily false that precedes it. I advance that you haven't. But beyond that, I didn't say the clarification was given. I said among the reasons why the right was important was the empirically verifiable fact that much of the population used it for exactly those purposes. They needed to be able to raise a citizen army. They understood those citizens used those arms to provide food, livelihood, and protection for themselves as well. Every single point in that is true. No falsity involved in any part of it.
    I find this to be more of a quibble. You and I both know that the second amendment in no capacity mentions hunting. To use hunting rifles as an inference, arguing that it was relevant to the time, is a fallacy, since no such clarification was ever made. Again, I think this is detracting from the real issue at hand.


    The most important thing to the nation at the point of framing was the preservation of that nation in the absence of a standing army. No doubt about it. But if that's the resting point then the right has outlived its usefulness, because it is no longer necessary for the security of our free state. But I'd argue that there are other reasons that are legitimate ones and warrant its continuation. I don't recall anything about malicious individuals in the right though, to echo your approach.
    Incorrect. While the prime event that the Founders were focus on was an inevitable conflict with Britain, the rights outlined were not directed at war or international conflict purposes. If this were the case, freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. would not have been the first right outlined. Nor would matters of jury, due process, etc.

    Therefore, to relegate a right to arms as a singular means of establishing an armed force is a falsehood. Now, that is not what you have done, however, your argument appears to place heavy emphasis on such a claim.

    And yes, there is no direct mention of malicious individual; yet such persons are outlined by the Founders, regarding the right to arms, in other documents. Thus, it is relevant. Surely, you concur.


    Absent speed loaders a revolver isn't really that much more dangerous, except in terms of concealment, than a double barrel shotgun.
    This demonstrates an ignorance of firearms.

    Take for example the Judge handgun. It fires six .45 loads, or .410 loads. Six "shotgun" loads is much more dangerous than a double barrel shotgun. A double-barrel shotgun, or any single shot weapon for that matter, usually has limits (excluding those with clip/magazine capabilities) the number of rounds to around 6 or 7. There are revolvers with up to 10 rounds. My point is that number does determine effectiveness, as does the size of the caliber the weapon uses.

    So, you are wrong on this point. Do you see how?


    No, it's literally true that the weapons I support are more capable than the weapons in existence and which the Founders found capable of serving the purpose of fulfilling the right. The militia no longer being necessary for the defense of our nation, those are the only remaining reasons that should compel, along with the simple right to own property.
    Wrong. Let us examine some weapons that were utilized in those days, which the Founders would have had knowledge of.

    The Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, puckle gun, pepper-box revolvers, volley gun, etc. All of these weapons fire more than one or two rounds per second. So, to also rely on an ideology of the Founders having solely hunting rifles, or frontier rifles in mind is simply ignorant.

    As for the arming of the people being the purpose of defense against invader, this is disproved by a simple quote from Jefferson: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
    Fall 1778, Papers 2:526; The Founders' Constitution
    Volume 1, Chapter 18, Document 11
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch18s11.html
    The University of Chicago Press)


    Nothing in that right, to follow your own way of examining it prior, speaks to the idea of overthrowing our government. In point of fact, though there was some mistrust among some Founders (and remember that we had more of a compact than what our evolving Union would become by a century later) the idea wasn't to fight among ourselves but to repel invaders, like the British.
    I at no point have spoken of "overthrowing our government."

    "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."

    The fact is that once we achieved that standing army, again, that existence was no longer necessary. And there's no real reason to suggest some inherent noble purity and protection vests in a militia in any way that it cannot or should not as readily vest in our armed forces. There's a better argument to the contrary.
    TH, this continued insistence that once a standing army was achieved, then the militia and arming of the people became obsolete. What nation, in the time of the drafting of the Constitution, did not have a standing army? Recall, at this time, we were assembling an army. Basic common sense (in 1776) would state that every sovereign nation has an army. So, to make a right assured to it citizens, dealing with formation of a military is ludicrous.


    If fifty men rush your house it won't matter. What I mean is that once we begin manufacturing scenarios, hypotheticals, that will largely never happen to justify the existence of a thing that is increasingly involved in non-hypothetical situations ending in the deaths of scores of people, there's not much real argument going on.
    You are right. It would not matter if fifty men rushed my house, if I only had single shot rifles. It would be futile. But, if I had access to weapons with 25 round magazines, then I would stand a chance.


    It really doesn't. It addresses ease of access, which goes to importation, manufacturing, and legal possession. Impact the supply and you impact the use.
    I know it is an old, and overused argument, but it is relevant: Heroin, cocaine, etc are illegal. Yet, people still have access to them. Has this supply not been impacted?

    To make something illegal does not negate it as viable. Murder is illegal. Yet, murders occur everyday. Speeding is illegal. Yet speeding occurs millions, if not billions, of times a day. Laws only affect those who abide by them.


    No. We have police forces and weapons sufficient to safeguard ourselves and property from the rule of what and how criminals use weapons outside of their use on one another in relation to the more organized elements and enterprises.
    What is the average response time of a police force to a home invasion? Or how about to a public murder, such as any mass shooting?

    An individual with a gun can, and more often than mass shootings, does stop extensive loss of life. Exponentially in fact.


    First, a sniper is just someone in hiding with a gun. It doesn't follow that they're particularly skilled. And while they certainly could kill a number of people, the difference between that potential and someone with a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon is profound, which remains the point.


    That's a peculiar statement, because someone is not an effective killer until the act is completed. It's a bit like saying a pregnant woman is not deterred by contraception.
    Points taken. I concur on these.


    We've seen some instances of that, to be sure. What we haven't found in every other industrialized Western democracy is people simply shifting means. For the most part that's understandable, because there really isn't as easy an alternative when it comes to killing a lot of people quickly.
    You mean like bombs, which are illegal to manufacture?


    In order, of course not. And no one is suggesting that ending the legal possession of the sorts of weapons I'm speaking to will end violence or every sort.

    To the second, what is clear is that it will significantly impact violence of this very particular and lethal sort and that in those Western democracies I've spoken to you haven't found the death toll simply shifting into another category. And given the statistically dramatic difference between them and us, for all our guns, the argument that eliminating some guns raises the danger or facilitates it is simply wrong.
    But statistics demonstrate that we have more guns in the hands of civilians than ever before; yet crime statistics do not show an increase in mass shootings. The correlation that such an argument as yours suggests just does not exist.

    If I am wrong, please, post some stats from a reliable source.


    I've repeatedly set out links to figures relating to the literally dramatic disparity per citizen in this country and the Western democracies noted above and prior. I've also set out links that examine an equally damning statistical difference between states here with strong gun laws and those without them in terms of gun deaths and injuries per 100k. The worst have the weakest and the best the strongest. And the disparity runs to double digits.
    If you just reference them adequately (such as the statistic, where it applies, and the resulting conclusion), I will try and find them.

    Also, we have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth and yet are the least safe among our Western cousins.
    Where is this statistic? Sweden shows the best stats, yet they have nearly every citizen armed.

    The UK saw an increase in crime with gun restrictive laws introduced. This is evident across Europe. This claim of the US being the least safe is always stated, but never factually evident.

    And your link was to the opening page of a voluminous report. Better for you to quote some portion of it so I'll know what you mean to suggest by it.
    My apologies. I will try and be more effective and heed this advice in the future. Thank you.


    In summation;
    In summation; The Second Amendment was not written as a precursor to a standard military. It was written to assure citizens the right to self-defense from internal (domestic, such as the US government) and external (such as invading forces) threats. If you continue with this insistence, I will provide evidence from the Founders, with respective sources, to efficiently demonstrate my claim.

    The Second Amendment is not written with musket mentality, as evidenced by the various types of "high-capacity" firearms that were available, and used, at the time of the Bill of Rights' drafting. Thus, any argument that such closed mentality was present is false.

    Guns, and their respective laws/regulations as they currently exist, are not directly correlational to gun crime/mass shootings. Statistics demonstrate that more lives are saved by the types of weapons you would restrict/ban, than are murdered with them.

    Lastly, your prescribed regulations and restrictions target only guns; ignoring evidence that more people are harmed by knives each year in assaults, than with guns. Unless you prescribe similar restrictions on knives, then you argument falls to hypocrisy.

  14. #746
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    Are you also for stricter regulations on knives, which account for a large number of violent assaults?
    No, but then I can't think of the last time someone with a knife killed twenty something people in a go, let alone fifty or better. And I'm not against all guns, though someone with a breech loader or a bolt action rifle could kill a few people with it. As I noted a number of times on the topic, what I'm speaking to is the ease with which a thing designed to kill can be used to kill a great many people in a very short time.

    The Founders also allowed citizens to have cannons, fifteen shot pistols, volley guns, etc.
    Again, when you have to raise an army from the citizenry you need the weapons of an army.

    Do these seem comparable to the simple weapons that you suggest? I would argue "no."
    A different purpose. And once that purpose was satisfied elsewhere restrictions began to pop up in law to restrict or deny access to especially dangerous weapons. And the Court upheld those restrictions.

    But the second amendment is not about a militia, it is about arming the people.
    No, it's not. Read the Amendment and note the premise.

    "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." It does not say anything about a militia being present or not affecting the arming of the People.
    That highlighted section is the "why" or the reason, purpose behind the amendment.

    So, you would say that a government, becoming tyrannical, is impossible, in the US?
    I'd say you don't make a rule based on a hypothetical, because almost anything is possible. What's more than possible, what is probable, is that without restricting the weapons I'm speaking to and making some serious changes to access we will continue to have the comparative disadvantage in terms of death count and gun related violence that we have today and that more and more Americans find unacceptable, as they should.

    If so, you are ignorant of reality. This has occurred historically; usually right after extreme gun control, comparable to what you suggest. Armies are not loyal to the people; they are loyal to the government.
    Rather, I'm well versed in history and understand that you're not speaking to the habits of western democracies.

    But they would stand more of a chance than with simple single-shots.
    And a bucket full of water will do more than a glass in a forest fire, but the difference won't really matter.

    I find this to be more of a quibble. You and I both know that the second amendment in no capacity mentions hunting.
    I didn't say that it did. It's about a militia, but I noted other things the Founders had to be aware of that were a part of the reality of the day.

    To use hunting rifles as an inference, arguing that it was relevant to the time, is a fallacy, since no such clarification was ever made. Again, I think this is detracting from the real issue at hand.
    Then it would be your problem as I clarified on the point once and now again. So...

    Incorrect. While the prime event that the Founders were focus on was an inevitable conflict with Britain, the rights outlined were not directed at war or international conflict purposes. If this were the case, freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. would not have been the first right outlined. Nor would matters of jury, due process, etc.
    It's not incorrect and that's not a rebuttal. The amendment tells you what its about and a militia was a rallied army for the purpose of repelling hostile forces. That's all it was used for in that day.

    Therefore, to relegate a right to arms as a singular means of establishing an armed force is a falsehood.
    No, it's what the amendment says. You need to curtail the "ignorant" and "falsehood" rhetoric if you want to have the sort of conversation with me you asked for...and I don't have time for the other sort. A falsehood is a knowing misrepresentation and telling someone that because they don't share your opinion they're ignorant is similarly problematic for meaningful difference and civil discourse.

    I'll have to come back for the rest as it's late with school in the morning.

    This demonstrates an ignorance of firearms.
    Like that. I'm a qualified marksman, former ROTC, life long gun owner and hunter and I've actually been fired upon a couple of times. So maybe you're just not taking my point or maybe you're taking it somewhere else.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. #747
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964
    Thank you for the reply.

    You need to curtail the "ignorant" and "falsehood" rhetoric if you want to have the sort of conversation with me you asked for...and I don't have time for the other sort. A falsehood is a knowing misrepresentation and telling someone that because they don't share your opinion they're ignorant is similarly problematic for meaningful difference and civil discourse.
    I address this first, due to the apparent need to clarify terminology/vocabulary.

    I agree with your definition of "falsehood," being a knowing misrepresentation. I have not at any point labeled your arguments or claims as a falsehood, due to them being opposing to my claim/stance. If I say "grass is purple," you can accurately label and call such claim a "falsehood." You would be right to do so; and have merely spoken true. If I am offended by such a label, then I am preferring ignorance to truth; thus, I am preferring a falsehood and my argument becomes a fallacy.

    "Ignorant" is when one does not possess knowledge of a fact or truth. I only use the word in this denotation. "Ignorance" is the absence of knowledge. By labeling some of your claims as "ignorant," I am highlighting an attribute of said claim. Statements of fact, and the discussion of said facts, are the exact sort of conversation that I seek.

    If you find facts problematic or aggregate to your view, then the issue does not lie with me, rather your view of reality. I state this upfront, so that you may efficiently understand my usage of "ignorant" and "falsehood," when they are applied to your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, but then I can't think of the last time someone with a knife killed twenty something people in a go, let alone fifty or better. And I'm not against all guns, though someone with a breech loader or a bolt action rifle could kill a few people with it. As I noted a number of times on the topic, what I'm speaking to is the ease with which a thing designed to kill can be used to kill a great many people in a very short time.
    In 2014, 35 people were killed, with 143 injured, in a knife wielding spree, in China. In 2016, a man in Tokyo killed 19, wounding 26.

    Outside of the US, and even at times within the US, knives are the weapon of choice for murder in Western civilizations. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, four times as many people are killed with knives than rifles.

    Unless you are for more restrictions on knives than rifles (which you have admitted that you are not), then you are hypocritical in your approach towards instruments used for crime.


    Again, when you have to raise an army from the citizenry you need the weapons of an army.


    A different purpose....


    No, it's not. Read the Amendment and note the premise.


    It's about a militia....

    It's not incorrect and that's not a rebuttal. The amendment tells you what its about and a militia was a rallied army for the purpose of repelling hostile forces. That's all it was used for in that day.
    In response to my statement of "Therefore, to relegate a right to arms as a singular means of establishing an armed force is a falsehood." : No, it's what the amendment says.
    Okay. I am not being condescending, but I am going to walk you through the first three parts of the document known as "We the People," and the Bill of Rights (preamble, first and second amendment), akin to a 5th grade history class.

    We the People: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

    Now, when it says "provide for the common defense," does that not allude to a standard army and military force? Yes. It does. Does any portion of this document infer that once this military is established, any preconceived rights assured to the people are obsolete? No it does not.

    Bill of Rights: Preamble; "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

    "RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

    "ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

    Notice, in Resolved, the following: "to be valid to all intents and purposes." Does any part of the preamble mention the cessation of any assured rights upon the formation of a military force? No it does not. In fact, no part of the preamble mentions any of the subsequent amendments as being written as a prelude to Revolution, or contingent upon it.

    First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Does this also serve as a means of establishing a revolution against Britain? Of course not. If we apply your approach to the second amendment to the first, we should then highly regulate, restrict, and ban freedoms to exercise religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitions. Due to these rights being assembled to "repel hostile forces;" since that initial threat (Britain) is not longer an issue, then these rights are no longer valid.

    Second Amendment: "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."

    A well regulated Militia is formed by the people, not the government. The people's ability to form a militia, in order to repel tyranny, is contingent upon their ability to effectively arm themselves.

    Also, notice the comma after "State?" It doesn't say the Militia has the right to bear arms, does it? It says "the right of the people." That comma is what destroys your argument that the second amendment is about forming an army, contingent upon a military formation, etc.


    That highlighted section is the "why" or the reason, purpose behind the amendment.
    Well, let us see what the Founders have to say about that:

    Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

    Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

    Seems they all agree with my analysis and claim, rather than yours. So, can we conclude that your assertions regarding the second amendment as solely a precursor (now obsolete) to formation of a military force is a falsehood?


    Rather, I'm well versed in history and understand that you're not speaking to the habits of western democracies.
    Well, history disagrees with you. Let us examine some historical evidence of western civilizations (Germany being the only democracy) now:

    Soviet Union: established gun control laws in 1929. 20 million dissidents rounded up and exterminated. No guns to protect themselves or form a militia. (This also shows restrictions on free speech, another leftist agenda)

    Germany: established gun control laws in 1938. From 1948 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

    China: established gun control laws in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia (also, free speech restrictions).


    In summary, knives are used to take more lives and injure than rifles. With you not in favor of stricter regulations on knives, a hypocrisy is exposed with your argument for gun restrictions/regulations.

    Your claims and argument that the second amendment "reads," "says," "was used for," etc solely for the purpose, and as a precursor that is no longer necessary, to form a military force is a falsehood. This is evidenced by the documents of the Founding Fathers, basic grammar and vocabulary, history, and context.

    Therefore, your argument regarding the second amendment is null and void. You can continue this preference for falsehood, but that would render you willfully ignorant.

    You could still effectively argue for gun regulation and restrictions, however, to rely on your present argument of the context of the second amendment would be illogical and irrational.


    Off topic, somewhat....
    Like that. I'm a qualified marksman, former ROTC, life long gun owner and hunter and I've actually been fired upon a couple of times. So maybe you're just not taking my point or maybe you're taking it somewhere else.
    I am a qualified marksman, life long gun owner (not a hunter or fisherman), and never been fired upon. I have a concealed-carry permit. I own guns that cause more damage than an AR-15.

    My sister was in ROTC. She owns a gun. She is a qualified marksman. She can't tell you crap about guns or their mechanics.

    You are trying to make an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

  16. #748
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    I agree with your definition of "falsehood," being a knowing misrepresentation. If I say "grass is purple," you can accurately label and call such claim a "falsehood."
    I can assume that, or I can see if you're color blind or simply mistaken for some other reason. The choice I make says something about the spirit of my involvement. So I should be careful about that.

    In 2014, 35 people were killed, with 143 injured, in a knife wielding spree, in China.
    A horrible thing. Now unpack it. In the account you're speaking to it wasn't some lone nut, but a group of men in a train station. A group of individuals in a tightly packed space committing an act of terrorism. A planned and coordinated act. They have more in common with Tim McVey than with the deranged or evil young man in Florida, or the deranged and/or evil fellow in Las Vegas. That is to say, they are an outlier among outliers and really, practically speaking, outside of the point.

    Outside of the US, and even at times within the US, knives are the weapon of choice for murder in Western civilizations. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, four times as many people are killed with knives than rifles. Unless you are for more restrictions on knives than rifles (which you have admitted that you are not), then you are hypocritical in your approach towards instruments used for crime.
    Well, no. It is a fact that more knives are used than rifles in violent acts. It's a rather singular one. But my objection has not been limited to rifles and where rifles not to all. Your statement that then asserts I must be a hypocrite if I'm not similarly situated on restricting knives without your having similarly framed the point is mistaken.

    Knives, unlike the class of guns I'm considering, haven't been designed to kill a great many people in a short period of time. And in the singular sense (use of any one of them to manage it) they have rarely been used to accomplish or capable of that end. Recall that this was a part of my noting what distinguishes the class of weapons that I objected to in relation to the sort of weapon I support in defense of the right.

    Okay. I am not being condescending, but I am going to walk you through the first three parts of the document known as "We the People," and the Bill of Rights (preamble, first and second amendment), akin to a 5th grade history class.


    Now, when it says "provide for the common defense," does that not allude to a standard army and military force? Yes. It does.
    Later addressed with specificity by Amendment, sure. The one I set out in full.

    Does any portion of this document infer that once this military is established, any preconceived rights assured to the people are obsolete? No it does not.
    A preamble isn't an establishment of right. It's a declaration of intent, a mission statement. What follows, the actual Constitution, establishes right. And so the amendment that, reasons notwithstanding, protects and legally establishes the right, which I am not and have never been opposed to.

    Second Amendment: "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."
    That's the ticket. We didn't have a standing army, unlike the nations that could threaten our security as a union, loose as that union was initially and comparatively. So we had to rely on a militia. That militia was necessary and the people who comprised it must then necessarily have weapons and the right to them protected. Basic social contract. Good notion.

    I also think there were other good reasons for protecting the right to bear arms. I'm sure those were understood in the time as well, but given the overwhelming need and good served by the first they weren't needed. Literally.

    A well regulated Militia is formed by the people, not the government.
    In our compact we, the people, are that government.

    Also, notice the comma after "State?" It doesn't say the Militia has the right to bear arms, does it? It says "the right of the people." That comma is what destroys your argument that the second amendment is about forming an army, contingent upon a military formation, etc.
    Had the Founders merely wanted to promote the right to bear arms among its people no mention of the militia would have been necessary. That they began with that very consideration is indicative of their intent. That said, again, I think they were aware of other pragmatic reasons, reasons I support to this day, but the one given was sufficient for the day.

    Well, let us see what the Founders have to say about that...Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    And he was right. For a number of reasons. The argument here is not and never has been the abolition of the right to bear arms.

    So, can we conclude that your assertions regarding the second amendment as solely a precursor (now obsolete) to formation of a military force is a falsehood?
    Only if you're royalty or simply in the habit of pluralizing yourself. No, you may not. I note again that I in no part advance nor is the issue enjoined here a fight over whether or not we have a right to bear arms. And I absolutely reject your notion that you establish in your quotes a thing that contradicts the larger reason advanced for the right (even as I hold there are other valid reason owing no part to either militia).

    Well, history disagrees with you.
    It does not. Now let's get to why. I specifically noted that my consideration was among Western democracies and how the more restrictive regulation of weapons has not carried with it an infringement upon liberty or principles dear to it, not led to the sort of tyranny in need of an armed uprising or one reasonably giving rise to paranoid hypotheticals. So dragging in the Soviets makes no sense as a rebuttal. Neither does China. Germany's republic was undone by its own people, willfully. If any populace reaches the point where it overwhelmingly believes a thing the minority will have to move or fight, and likely lose in the latter effort. The confluence of historic forces that made Hitler's Germany is rare, singular among modern efforts at democracy. The outlier and not the rule and one relying on that improbable confluence.

    Germany: established gun control laws in 1938. From 1948 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.
    Germany actually only established (or, more accurately attempted to establish) those laws among a single class of its citizens, the Jew. And that was largely a failure, but it didn't matter given the might of its army and the popular will. This is no study in what followed from strong, universal gun law among Western democracies.

    If you want to examine that you only have to train your eyes on them to find they retain their governments and freedoms while divesting themselves of the level of violence and death that accompany our own misguided celebration.

    In summary, knives are used to take more lives and injure than rifles.
    I'd agree that if for no apparent reason other than to serve your ends we agreed to focus on all knives as an instrument of violence when compared to one class of guns, knives would win that peculiarly narrowed race.

    Your claims and argument that the second amendment "reads," "says," "was used for," etc solely for the purpose, and as a precursor that is no longer necessary, to form a military force is a falsehood.
    And, again, that is not and has not been my view any more than my aim is to eliminate the right. In fact and at nearly every point I have advanced that the right was an extension of any number of pragmatic understandings, but that (and lately in our particular discourse) having hung its necessity on an overriding and compelling necessity no other was needed at the time of its writing. It should have been amended long before now to include a larger consideration.

    This is evidenced by the documents of the Founding Fathers, basic grammar and vocabulary, history, and context.
    Rather, your cherry picked sampling of less than a handful of Founders, most of whom I fully agreed with, neither breaks my part in advance nor requires any alteration of the arguments I've presented for the actual point here, or what was supposed to be the point of the conversation, the argument for restricting certain guns from entry into the stream of commerce without the abolition of the right to bear arms.

    You can continue this preference for falsehood, but that would render you willfully ignorant.
    And that's nonsense prima facie, as I cannot hold both the knowing advance of a falsity and be ignorant of the same. That's always been a lazy, irrational bit of rhetoric. Pick an insult.

    You could still effectively argue for gun regulation and restrictions, however, to rely on your present argument of the context of the second amendment would be illogical and irrational.
    No part of my argument has or presently does rely on our side-bar on the 2nd Amendment, which I favor as a gun owner.

    Off topic, somewhat....
    I am a qualified marksman, life long gun owner (not a hunter or fisherman), and never been fired upon. I have a concealed-carry permit. I own guns that cause more damage than an AR-15.
    Sorry to hear it, though you're likely responsible with them. I say sorry to hear it because that indulgence, a needless one, is the premise for a great deal of equally needless harm.

    My sister was in ROTC. She owns a gun. She is a qualified marksman. She can't tell you crap about guns or their mechanics.
    Sorry to hear that as well. I've rarely met anyone who was skilled in the use of a gun who couldn't also break that gun into parts for proper cleaning and I wonder at how long or what sort of ROTC program she was involved with? Smacks of high school, perhaps. That would explain it.

    You are trying to make an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).
    No, I would be making an argument from authority had I advanced my qualifications and said that because of them my position on a particular (outside of an understanding or point directly tied to any or all of them) must be true.

    Now here's what actually happened. You said that my remarks demonstrated "an ignorance of firearms". Responding that I am a life long hunter, possessing a qualified skill in their use, among other notes, is a clear rebuttal on the general point you make in your mistaken assumption.
    I'll try to get back to some of the earlier I didn't have time to address prior as time permits.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; March 17th, 2018 at 07:31 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. #749
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,525
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 7,044 Times in 4,072 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147810
    Picking up....I'd written, "Absent speed loaders a revolver isn't really that much more dangerous, except in terms of concealment, than a double barrel shotgun."
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    This demonstrates an ignorance of firearms.

    Take for example the Judge handgun. It fires six .45 loads, or .410 loads. Six "shotgun" loads is much more dangerous than a double barrel shotgun. A double-barrel shotgun, or any single shot weapon for that matter, usually has limits (excluding those with clip/magazine capabilities) the number of rounds to around 6 or 7. There are revolvers with up to 10 rounds. My point is that number does determine effectiveness, as does the size of the caliber the weapon uses.

    So, you are wrong on this point. Do you see how?
    What I see is a disconcerting habit of assuming or not fully contextualizing on your part. For instance, you choose a 45 and assume what caliber of shotgun? At what distance? With what skill, etc? In general, a shotgun is more deadly for any practical use. You want home defense, I'll take my double barrel 20 gauge indoors over any handgun. And I'm skilled with a handgun. Most people, criminal or not, aren't particularly proficient in the use of their weapon in the best of circumstances, let alone in a situation involving adrenaline and fear.

    Beyond that, I've considered six shot revolvers. I wouldn't consider much if anything beyond that, if that.

    Wrong. Let us examine some weapons that were utilized in those days, which the Founders would have had knowledge of.
    Rather, let us consider the guns that were largely on hand and therefore likely to be used by any militiaman. The ones we have at hand that meet my support are superior. Especially a bolt action rifle.


    The Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, puckle gun, pepper-box revolvers, volley gun, etc. All of these weapons fire more than one or two rounds per second. So, to also rely on an ideology of the Founders having solely hunting rifles, or frontier rifles in mind is simply ignorant.
    The Girandoni shot by use of an air reservoir with diminishing returns, though it was the closest thing to a repeating rifle that could be found. Even so you had to raise the weapon up to load the second round and there's no way to accomplish that and fire two rounds per second before we get to the decrease in velocity with each reloading until the chamber is exhausted. The Belton wasn't made until 1777 and was rejected by us and then the Brits. He claimed it could be done in as much as eight or as little as three seconds. It's not backed by much empirically speaking. So no. The puckle gun was designed to sit mounted as a means to repel ship boarding and has no practical claim here and I think only a couple were even made. One of two we know were actually constructed fired 9 rounds in a minute. The average musket could fire 2 to 5 per minute. And so on...

    As for the arming of the people being the purpose of defense against invader, this is disproved by a simple quote from Jefferson: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
    Well, no. I noted that the right had a context and purpose. That context was centered on the preservation of the fre State. The threat to that was from foreign powers. But really man, pick an object. You only just said you weren't talking about the tyranny of our own government and now you speak to Jefferson's fear of the fear of just that.

    At any rate, given none of this serves the thing we were supposed to seriously discuss I'm not sure getting bogged down in an argument over it manages to accomplish much that is productive.

    TH, this continued insistence that once a standing army was achieved, then the militia and arming of the people became obsolete.
    Not really a part of my argument at any point. Noting that the service was accomplished on this one if central aim and that many of the unvoiced but pragmatic arguments for the right is not and has not been advanced by me to deny the right itself, which isn't at issue here.

    I know it is an old, and overused argument, but it is relevant: Heroin, cocaine, etc are illegal. Yet, people still have access to them. Has this supply not been impacted?
    And yet where the measures I support are in play deaths and violence by gun are appreciably lower than where they are not.

    To make something illegal does not negate it as viable.Murder is illegal. Yet, murders occur everyday. Speeding is illegal. Yet speeding occurs millions, if not billions, of times a day. Laws only affect those who abide by them.
    If laws had no impact there would be no laws. Laws impact on two fronts. First, their consequence deters the reasonable man in his pursuit of any particular desire. Illustration of this is in the notable decrease in loss of life following the lowering of speed limits and the insistence of seatbelt use in cars. Does it stop every? Of course not. Does it work a good? Of course it does. Second, laws which prohibit the manufacturing, distribution and sale of particular things will necessarily impact the distribution and sale of those things. The fewer of them the less damage is likely by them (see: every other Western democracy with universal and tougher gun law). As even those who oppose my measures note, it's a logical necessity. Water is wet. Even those who don't want to bathe can recognize the empirical truth of the proposition.

    What is the average response time of a police force to a home invasion? Or how about to a public murder, such as any mass shooting?
    If you find it insufficient argue for increasing the numbers of police or proximity to the citizenry.

    An individual with a gun can, and more often than mass shootings, does stop extensive loss of life. Exponentially in fact.
    Citation to authority? In any event, what I have cited to and noted is that the banning of these weapons leads to an easily observable distinction when it comes to gun violence, deaths, and mass murders.

    But statistics demonstrate that we have more guns in the hands of civilians than ever before; yet crime statistics do not show an increase in mass shootings. The correlation that such an argument as yours suggests just does not exist.
    Rather, it may evidence any number of things, from a saturation point past which additional weapons have an increasingly marginal impact. It may reflect a decrease in a given population prone to using those weapons violently. Any number of things really. And so we have more guns per individual than any nation on earth and lead the world in gun violence and mass murder. This rather demolishes the argument that safety is found in the possession of more guns. Coupled with the statistics from our cousins the rational course is clear.

    If I am wrong, please, post some stats from a reliable source.
    I've posted a great many. You'll have to go back along the discourse here. I've noted the disparate impact in terms of other countries and even within our borders and placed links.

    Where is this statistic? Sweden shows the best stats, yet they have nearly every citizen armed.
    Not really. At least not in the sense that we are. I've noted Sweden, which has dramatically more gun control than we do here. You have to take and pass a serious test first after a year long course. You can't own more than six guns without special permission. You have to store them in a safe and transportation of them is regulated as well. You can't own guns if you're a felon, convicted of domestic violence, or driving under the influence. You can't own a fully automatic weapon and the chances of your getting a license for a semi-automatic aren't great.

    The UK saw an increase in crime with gun restrictive laws introduced. This is evident across Europe. This claim of the US being the least safe is always stated, but never factually evident.
    Google deaths per 100k by guns and see what you come up with.

    Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (link)

    Look at the US from 1990-2015 and an average of 4.2 deaths per 100k
    Now look at Europe. You'll see a near uniform 1 and under.

    In summation; The Second Amendment was not written as a precursor to a standard military.
    Right. The right was established in the absence of a standing army to safeguard our legal ability to raise one from our ranks (among other, unvoiced but I think important considerations that really should have been written in, but understandably weren't given the right to one protected the right to others). There wasn't a sufficient vision of our nation as a more unified and federally controlled institution to envision the standing army and degree of federal development and control that would come later.

    It was written to assure citizens the right to self-defense from internal (domestic, such as the US government) and external (such as invading forces) threats.
    It doesn't say that. In fact, it states its purpose as securing a free State, not a free individual. Of course, in our republic the State is a collection of free and entitled individuals. So that's a win/win.

    The Second Amendment is not written with musket mentality, as evidenced by the various types of "high-capacity" firearms that were available, and used, at the time of the Bill of Rights' drafting. Thus, any argument that such closed mentality was present is false.
    First, that's nonsense and I addressed it prior. But what I have said is that the weapons the Founders found sufficient were if anything less capable than the weapons I support.

    Guns, and their respective laws/regulations as they currently exist, are not directly correlational to gun crime/mass shootings.
    In point of fact, where gun laws are more strict in our own states the deaths per 100k of citizens is markedly better and compared to every other Western industrialized democracy with universal and stronger gun laws that undeniable fact becomes more dramatically evidenced.

    You are certainly free to view it as a coincidence of staggering dimensions.

    Lastly, your prescribed regulations and restrictions target only guns
    Rather, they target only some types of guns. The guns used successfully to murder scores of children in minutes. Yes. That's right.

    ignoring evidence that more people are harmed by knives
    Raising an issue isn't a de facto ignoring of other issues. Just so, I can speak about cancer without "ignoring" heart disease. And knives are a much more complicated issue. But if you want to outlaw those particularly aimed at killing other human beings and can demonstrate that from the larger group they stand out it's a discussion to be had, though the considerations and limitations of effectiveness will be a different animal.

    Unless you prescribe similar restrictions on knives, then you argument falls to hypocrisy.
    Rebutted prior. It doesn't at all follow.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; March 17th, 2018 at 07:51 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    jsanford108 (March 17th, 2018)

  19. #750
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183964

    58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

    I really appreciate and enjoyed your last response (I think it was your best one thus far) I will try and compose my response either tomorrow or Monday. Prior engagements prevent a proper rebuttal.

    I wanted to wait until you had fully replied to respond, just because I was afraid of forming two different conversations by our dual reply method.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us