Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

By making a series of “hoops”, as you call it, that prospective gun owners must jump through, it can definitely be made MORE difficult for said psychos to get guns while still allowing responsible gun users like you and I to get them.

[/quote]

Based on much of what you’ve written about yourself over the years, Bert, you and I might have a hard time making a case that you are responsible enough to own and use a gun as per your parameters.

As far as “hoops” are concerned one would have to make the “distinction” between them and “infringement,” if any, before one can legitimately claim their legitimacy.[/quote]

My argument is that infringing upon your rights to gun ownership and acquisition supersedes the right itself if it proves to be a better form of self-defense.

I argue this because, in my opinion, the right to self-defense is necessarily superior to the right to own and use a gun. I further argue that this point is obviously, blatantly clear. Gun ownership is a species of self-defense, self-defense being its genus but also a species of Natural Rights.

If the limitation of gun ownership, jumping through hoops, infringing, whatever, can be shown to be a better form of self-defense against gun violence than putting MORE guns into people’s hands, then there is no reason to continue pandering to your side of the argument.

Surely, you aren’t on here to argue that the Founding Fathers themselves, that someone as logically inclined as James the Man With the Plan Madison, would EVER erroneously argue that the right to gun ownership is superior to the right to self-defense. Surely, you aren’t on here arguing that gun rights are superordinate to the Natural Right to self-defense. Surely, you aren’t on here trying to argue that the two are perfectly synonymous.

If you can clearly show that people in San Berdoo would have been better off against those two fuckers if they ALSO had guns rather than if the two fuckers did NOT have guns, I’ll conceded my point. But I really have a hard time understanding how a shooting is less likely when there are MORE guns in the hands of well-minded people than when there are NO guns in the hands of criminally-minded people. Your solution simply calls to be reactionary. Every. Single. Time.

edit: I’m also not foolish enough to argue that we can ever really hope to prevent with 100% success madmen from legally acquiring guns. But I’m sure you’re also not endorsing the stance that your view of things will prevent all gun violence either. The pure eradication of something like that is never a prudent goal, but certainly the lessening of it is. I simply feel that my solution may prove to be more prudent than yours.

362

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Entitlement is something that is given to you legitimately, meaning it wasn’t first stolen or something along those lines.

[/quote]

Will start with this ^.

Not necessarily. Social Security is an entitlement and it does NOT mean “it wasn’t stolen or something along those lines.”

Self defense/keeping and bearing is an entitlement, yes, but it’s an entitlement given by God, not by the Constitution like TB claimed. It’s an entitlement given by God and recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution.[/quote]

The Constitution only guarantees protection. It doesn’t guarantee the successful protection thereof. Only God can guarantee the actual enjoyment of something given by Him.

Distinctions. They’re a trifle important.

363

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s a new question for the thread:

Should everyone on the “no-fly” list automatically lose their right to keep and bear as Bam and Shrill and others have touted?[/quote]

Only if everyone on the no-fly list is there for a “good” reason, meaning they are an objectively legitimate, real threat to the security of the United States and its people.

I know where you’re going with this one. The no-fly list could potentially be used as a backdoor pathway to eliminating gun ownership rights by incrementally expanding the scope of whatever definition it is that one must fit in order to make the list in the first place.

The problem lies in the sheer dearth of sagacious legislators nowadays. It has me thinking of getting into politics on some sort of local level. What the fuck is an “objectively legitimate, real threat”?

364

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s a new question for the thread:

Should everyone on the “no-fly” list automatically lose their right to keep and bear as Bam and Shrill and others have touted?[/quote]

As an addendum, I would say that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anything happen as President Obama and/or the Shrill One ever tout. Even if they tout that 2+2=4, we should take it as sheer luck and turn to a 1st grader for confirmation.

369

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

In no way did Madison take it for granted that the inalienable nature of these rights made it impossible for the gov’t to grant them.

[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]

Madison initially opposed the Bill of Rights because he felt them to be superfluous. The Constitution was written with the clear intent to define and limit the scope of the federal gov’t. Since the power to violate the Rights listed in the Amendments was not expressly granted to the gov’t, and the sole extent of the federal govt’s powers are defined within the Constitution, there is no ability on the part of the federal gov’t to violate any of them. There is no need to codify all of the restrictions of the gov’t when the absence from its powers of an ability to violate them is sufficient.

Madison was initially more concerned that people would eventually take the first 8 Amendments to be the SOLE extent of the rights that the gov’t cannot violate, or perhaps the SOLE extent of the rights of the people. Hence, the 9th and 10th Amendments.[/quote]

I agree and all that helps make my point. Thanks.[/quote]

Not quite. You claim the 9th/10th when it suits you, but abandon it otherwise. Like any other right, the particular expression of it can be limited to varying extents if doing so better serves the purpose behind protecting them in the first place. We have the protection of such rights in furtherance of the Safety and Happiness of the people of the United States. Is not the limitation of the ability of madmen to get guns through legal means an effective pathway toward Safety and Happiness?

Was, then, the precious blood of thousands spilled, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but rather that particular individuals might enjoy a certain extent of gun ownership rights, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?

The Founding Fathers, at least not the one that wrote the Bill of Rights, were as literal-minded as you might think they were. Original intent is tantamount, yes, but their intent was never to make the particulars superior to Form.

370

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Note to those following this thread: always, always, always beware of the guy who in a discussion like this one says something like, “Hey, I like guns and I own guns…but…”

His seemingly, itty-bitty li’l “but” can easily make him the most rotten apple in the barrel.[/quote]

Am I doing it right?

373

Here’s my form of self-defense. If you ask me, it’s the best kind. Seriously, it’s why I teach American history.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/san-bernardino-isil-terrorism-civics-class-213422

375

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s a new question for the thread:

Should everyone on the “no-fly” list automatically lose their right to keep and bear as Bam and Shrill and others have touted?[/quote]

No.

Like anything generated by the Government; it has far too many mistakes (which has been proven over and over again); and also true to Government; it takes almost an act to Congress to be taken off the list even if its a clear mistake.

Mufasa

376

Let me add this:

The Government has an absolutely ATROCIOUS history of “Due process” (my own personal history is with the IRS) when it comes to correcting their mistakes.

Can you imagine with the climate we are in trying to even be HEARD if you are mistakenly put on the “list”?

Also (as DB and Push have alluded to): who in the hell puts you on the list; and what criteria do they use? How many in Congress or the Judicial and Administrative branches even KNOW?

Mufasa

377

dbcooper
, I’ll conceded my point. But I really have a hard time understanding how a shooting is less likely when there are MORE guns in the hands of well-minded people than when there are NO guns in the hands of criminally-minded people. Your solution simply calls to be reactionary. Every. Single. Time.

risk versus reward simple
the knowing that your victim can defend themselves increases risk decreases reward

ever here about mass shooting at a gun show? wonder why?
wonder why mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
reactionary, maybe not how about preventive

378

[quote]cavemansam wrote:
dbcooper
, I’ll conceded my point. But I really have a hard time understanding how a shooting is less likely when there are MORE guns in the hands of well-minded people than when there are NO guns in the hands of criminally-minded people. Your solution simply calls to be reactionary. Every. Single. Time.

risk versus reward simple
the knowing that your victim can defend themselves increases risk decreases reward

ever here about mass shooting at a gun show? wonder why?
wonder why mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
reactionary, maybe not how about preventive[/quote]

When it comes to gun control in the 21st century, it must be taken into account that many of the perpetrators of such violence don’t give one flying fuck if they survive or not. When it comes to fundamental Islamic terrorists, they have no intention of surviving, unless it’s long enough to commit another atrocity.

So the threat of death doesn’t really enter the equation in many cases and, given what we know about some of the more recent shootings, largely negates your point.

379

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Let me add this:

The Government has an absolutely ATROCIOUS history of “Due process” (my own personal history is with the IRS) when it comes to correcting their mistakes.

Can you imagine with the climate we are in trying to even be HEARD of you are mistakenly put on the “list”?

Also (as DB and Push have alluded to): who in the hell puts you on the list; and what criteria do they use? How many in Congress or the Judicial and Administrative branches even KNOW?

Mufasa[/quote]

The topic is almost irrelevant, given that even those who would support my stance must concede that there is virtually no one with the sagacity to run such a policy, at least not in Washington.

380

[quote]cavemansam wrote:
dbcooper
, I’ll conceded my point. But I really have a hard time understanding how a shooting is less likely when there are MORE guns in the hands of well-minded people than when there are NO guns in the hands of criminally-minded people. Your solution simply calls to be reactionary. Every. Single. Time.

risk versus reward simple
the knowing that your victim can defend themselves increases risk decreases reward

ever here about mass shooting at a gun show? wonder why?
wonder why mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
reactionary, maybe not how about preventive[/quote]

That’s exactly why these crazed shooters often pick gun free zones. Schools, movie theaters, places of employment. As you say how come we never hear of a would be mass shooter opening up at a gun show or hunting club?

It seem very obvious to me that if the good guys are carrying weapons the bad guys are either not going to attack or if they do will go down in a flame of fire in return before many casualties can be totaled.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the left wants to disarm honest hard working citizens who simply want to protect themselves and their families. But then again I have for many years thought of liberalism as a sort of mental disorder. And I think our current President is proving this to be true with virtually every decision he makes.