The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Granite]

The problem isn't the gun culture but the death culture that I preach against.

And you honestly think you can separate the two?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why I support the second amendment. This is my sport and I love it and don't want to give it up.

Spoiler

 

[TomO]

Why I support the second amendment. This is my sport and I love it and don't want to give it up.

Spoiler

Nobody cares about your "Death Culture". :IA:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nobody cares about your "Death Culture". :IA:

They should. I protect them from evil balloons!

 

[TomO]

They should. I protect them from evil balloons!

:juggle: Uh-huh....

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Why I support the second amendment. This is my sport and I love it and don't want to give it up.

Spoiler

You do not need the Second Amendment to have your hobbies, sports and recreational activities.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right of civilians as nothing more than civilians to own (keep) and to carry (bear) firearms like modern automatic pistols and automatic/select-fire modern military-grade longgun's.

It does not recognize a right to keep and bear firearms with no redeeming military value, like sawed-off shotguns and side-by-side/over-under break action shotguns though, nor antiques.

As I said, you don't need the Second Amendment to have a hobby. Plenty of hobbyists in countries who otherwise outright ban civilian firearm ownership are permitted to own functioning firearms with historical or sporting significance. Nobody in these countries can own an AR-15 or FAL or a bullpup rifle.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[gcthomas]

Why I support the second amendment. This is my sport and I love it and don't want to give it up.

Spoiler

Many of the students in my school shoot and shoot very well. But we don't let them keep their guns in the boarding houses. Gun control does not necessarily rule out sport shooting.

 

[TomO]

There ya go CabinetMaker....Don't need it anyway. :e4e:

 

[Yorzhik]

I haven't read all your lists so I may have missed it. What do you propose?

Freedom, and the right for someone to defend themselves. Anything less than a gun would be a restriction on the right to defend one's self.

 

[elohiym]

Why I support the second amendment. This is my sport and I love it and don't want to give it up.

Spoiler

Behold the heroic gunslinger fantasy.

 

[elohiym]

And you honestly think you can separate the two?

Obviously. Do you honestly think everyone who owns a gun is necessarily part of what people seem to mean by the term death culture? Don't the murderers in the death culture use other weapons besides guns? Knives are used in murder more often than rifles and shotguns combined but we don't hold the knife culture responsible for that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Behold the heroic gunslinger fantasy.

Yeah, it is and I freely and proudly admit to it. But I am not naive enough to think that carrying my guns in public is a good thing. If I were to carry my guns in public then I would want training in everything from situational awareness, live fire training, legal ramifications just to name a few. If I see somebody in public with guns then I expect them to have the same training.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Freedom, and the right for someone to defend themselves. Anything less than a gun would be a restriction on the right to defend one's self.

The 21' rule, when properly understood, means that a hand gun, even in the hands of a trained police officer, affords little to no protection against a knife. So bang goes that theory. If you see somebody approaching you with a knife you can draw your gun. That person can no have you arrested for felony menacing. Not much protection there as a felony conviction will result in you losing all your guns.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have answered your question several times. Your intellectual inability to understand what I have said is no longer my problem.

Your answer is to say that some vague future entity will be able to figure out how to, fairly accurately, predict how a crazy person will act.

That is not an answer. It is the same as saying "magic happens" until you can show us, at the very least, a track record of this working, or the mechanism of how it works, or you show us how anyone can accomplish what you propose so they can verify it for themselves.

But further - Your example of cutting hair is a great example. People have gone to jail for not having a license to barber. You'll admit that jailing someone for barbering without a license is wrong, wouldn't you?

No. There is a law on the books with proscribed penalties. They broke the law so it is just that they suffer the proscribed penalty. If you want to discuss the reasonableness of the law, that is a different discussion.

The reaonsableness of laws that remove rights is precisely the discussion. Which is exactly what the example shows.

There are only three unalienable rights listed in the Deceleration of Independence. The Bill of Rights is a later document created by the people and for the people. As such, we the people have the right to reasonably limit rights.

Yes, Justly.

Until "we the people" are God, we don't have the authority to limit rights. By your logic, we can declare people with certain skin color to be non-human.

The question is perfectly clear. We have cases of terrorism and mental defect that have been identified as the cause of shootings. Is it reasonable to act to prevent people predisposed toward violence from obtaining guns? Fairly simple.

No longer so simple. Just a moment ago you were only advocating that schizophrenics loose the right to defend themselves. But now you are either adding more people to that list, or all terrorists are schizophrenics.

Only if you are VERY paranoid.

Only if one is a realist. As you just demonstrated immediately above, by your logic and now example just about anyone can be on the list of people that aren't allowed to defend themselves.

You made my case for me.

Of course. You need to have a place to start.

Starting with the utterly unreliable field of psychology, it is a forgone conclusion that tyranny is the only outcome.

Ah, its not a constitutional issue for you, it is a religious issue.

It's an issue of right and wrong, not some arbitrary societal situation we might find ourselves in at any particular time.

Please post the scripture for us where God tells us it is okay to use deadly force to protect ourselves and our stuff.

Matthew 7:9 "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

There would be facts gather into evidence BEFORE a person loses the right to bear arms.

Please list these facts you speak of. Give us an example. And, also, be sure the example doesn't break current law since that is outside the scope of what you are proposing.

We've never seen a psych eval that we were sure thwarted a mass murder.

I never said there was.

I know. That's the point. A psych eval can never in the future, as it never has in the past, do what you say you want it to do. Yet, your entire argument rests on this fantasy you hold.

We remove rights from people all the time. If there is nothing wrong with removing somebodies right to freedom for breaking laws...

"... then there is nothing wrong with removing somebodies rights before they break any law." is precisely what you are saying.

And you don't see anything wrong with that.

You will never answer the question.

I will. But you have to clarify the question first. Who are these crazies that you speak of? Oh, and let's also add terrorists that haven't broken a law yet. Please list them, too.

That is the question I have asked. Here, let me break it down for you.

"How am I to get a gun?" asked Yorzhik again, in a louder tone.

"Are you to get a gun at all?" said the People, "That's the first question, you know."

And the answer is, "Of course I'm to get a gun. There is no other effective means to instantly turn a defenseless person into someone that can defend themselves. Who gave the people the authority over God to grant rights?"

Nor can you. Which makes me wonder how you would identify who need to protect yourself from.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You've just said I am right in my core argument here, and yet you will blunder on as if you don't realize what you just said.

 

[elohiym]

Yeah, it is and I freely and proudly admit to it. But I am not naive enough to think that carrying my guns in public is a good thing. If I were to carry my guns in public then I would want training in everything from situational awareness, live fire training, legal ramifications just to name a few. If I see somebody in public with guns then I expect them to have the same training.

You expect them to not only dress the heroic gun-slinger fantasy part like you but to also be thinking like one more actively. Got it.

 

[Yorzhik]

The 21' rule, when properly understood, means that a hand gun, even in the hands of a trained police officer, affords little to no protection against a knife. So bang goes that theory. If you see somebody approaching you with a knife you can draw your gun. That person can no have you arrested for felony menacing. Not much protection there as a felony conviction will result in you losing all your guns.

Well then, since every situation is identical to what you mention here... wait, not all situations are the same. A gun is the only defense in many situations and for many people. Especially those without police training.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your answer is to say that some vague future entity will be able to figure out how to, fairly accurately, predict how a crazy person will act.

That is not an answer. It is the same as saying "magic happens" until you can show us, at the very least, a track record of this working, or the mechanism of how it works, or you show us how anyone can accomplish what you propose so they can verify it for themselves.

Your mischaracterization of my position. Magic doesn't happen, science does.

The reaonsableness of laws that remove rights is precisely the discussion. Which is exactly what the example shows.

Yes, it shows that we can and do reasonably remove rights in certain situations.

Until "we the people" are God, we don't have the authority to limit rights. By your logic, we can declare people with certain skin color to be non-human.

Of course we do because the Bill of Rights is not from God, it is from the People of the USA.

No longer so simple. Just a moment ago you were only advocating that schizophrenics loose the right to defend themselves. But now you are either adding more people to that list, or all terrorists are schizophrenics.

That wasn't me that was somebody else but I agree with the principle because a schizophrenic is far more likely to see you as a threat and shoot you. It is in the schizophrenics own best interest to lose his gun rights to protect himself from somebody like you.

Only if one is a realist. As you just demonstrated immediately above, by your logic and now example just about anyone can be on the list of people that aren't allowed to defend themselves.

You made my case for me.

You are foolish if you think a gun is the only means of self defense. Look at the 21' Rule closely.

Starting with the utterly unreliable field of psychology, it is a forgone conclusion that tyranny is the only outcome.

It is the best we have so that is where we start. And make it better.

It's an issue of right and wrong, not some arbitrary societal situation we might find ourselves in at any particular time.

Then you need to be VERY careful in your definitions of what is right and what is wrong. Carrying a gun is not always right.

Matthew 7:9 "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

You are going to have to explain this one. It has nothing to do with what I asked.

Please list these facts you speak of. Give us an example. And, also, be sure the example doesn't break current law since that is outside the scope of what you are proposing.

I have already discussed this above.

I know. That's the point. A psych eval can never in the future, as it never has in the past, do what you say you want it to do. Yet, your entire argument rests on this fantasy you hold.

It is the place to start because psych evals can indicate a probable future.

"... then there is nothing wrong with removing somebodies rights before they break any law." is precisely what you are saying.

And you don't see anything wrong with that.

Not in the case of guns, there is nothing wrong if doing so protects both society and the person.

I will. But you have to clarify the question first. Who are these crazies that you speak of?

Who would you shoot? I would start with those people to protect them from you.

And the answer is, "Of course I'm to get a gun. There is no other effective means to instantly turn a defenseless person into someone that can defend themselves. Who gave the people the authority over God to grant rights?"

Somebody with a knife standing 15' in front of you can kill you before you can finish drawing your gun.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You've just said I am right in my core argument here, and yet you will blunder on as if you don't realize what you just said.

Ah, but you don't get to say whether you get the gun or not, the People do. That is the difference. If you are going to carry a gun in public, the public's right to know that you can be trusted with a gun outweighs your right to carry in public. That is the point that you fail to grasp.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well then, since every situation is identical to what you mention here... wait, not all situations are the same. A gun is the only defense in many situations and for many people. Especially those without police training.

I have been on this Earth for over a half century. I have never once felt the need to have a gun for defense. A gun is terrible to defend against a knife attack at close range and aren't you the one saying that knife attacks are more prevalent?

Seriously, what do you need to defend yourself against?

The only situation I can think where I would want a gun for defense is trail riding in the back country. Bear and Puma can really ruin an afternoon.

 

[TomO]

:doh: The 21' foot rule exists as a reminder not to be a one trick pony in regards to self-defense...Not as a total repudiation of the firearm as a defense tool.

This is why I can't do this argument anymore...The whole thing turns into a bloodbath of emotional pabulum, character assassination, old wives tales, and just plain stupid. lain:

 

[bybee]

I have been on this Earth for over a half century. I have never once felt the need to have a gun for defense. A gun is terrible to defend against a knife attack at close range and aren't you the one saying that knife attacks are more prevalent?

Seriously, what do you need to defend yourself against?

The only situation I can think where I would want a gun for defense is trail riding in the back country. Bear and Puma can really ruin an afternoon.

Or, a woman alone in her bedroom and a male intruder appears?