Ten oz

I am not sure we have the needed context to answer this thread's question. I think if life is adundant throughout the universe than how natural the selection of life here is matters less than if Earth is the sole source of all life and only place where natural selection exists.

Where do these "natural human rights" come from? Segregation just ended in the 60's, women national just got the right to vote in the 20's, and Same-Sex couple were just given the right to mary. Has the United States been evil this entire time or are the things I mentioned not natural rights on par with gun ownership?

Yes, we have the capacity to self govern and write new or different laws. The Bill of Rights was not discovered in a cave etched in gold leaf. It was written, debated, and ratifiied . If compromised debate led to such a great document being produced in 1787 why can't it today? The 2nd Amendments scope has already been restricted. U.S. v Miller in 1939 basically defined "arms" to mean gun. The founders intended for local populations to be armed to protect themselves, townships, and form militias to combat war if needed. Police departments and a standing military did not exist. The 2nd Amendment was designed to allow individuals to act in those capacities for their own communities. Faster forward to today and we do not limit our police or military to only having guns. The "arms" they have access to is far greater yet the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to only cover an individuals right to a gun. The 2nd Amendment as written was not limiting. A Court decision over hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written limited its meaning. It is that more limited meaning you defend today.

It is not dismissive of the Constitution to point out that it is Admendable. It was designed to flexible and not carved in stone. As society changes so too does the Constitution. If not than blacks would still only be 3/5 a person and only land owners would be allowed to vote. Gun advocates try to draw the line in the sand at the 2nd Admandment and pretend it's monolithic, it is not. How many of the initial 10 Admendments are practiced today as they were in 1789? Did the 4th Admendment protect all people from unreasonable searches; i bet slaves, indentured servants, and native didn't feel it did. What about the 6th Admendent, where minorities and single adult women truly recieving impartial juries? And of course the 2nd Admendment did not cover slaves in 1789 either. The Constitution has evolved and its Admendents have be re-defined throughout the years. To pretend otherwise as a non-starter to reasonable debate lacks integrity.

God is not treated as an "abstraction" by people who believe in him/her/it. God is a specific entity with a name (Jesus, Krishna, Apollo, Buddha, Zeus, etc) and a laundry list of human like thoughts and judgements. No scientist or atheist claims the "abstraction" that is time has an opinion about the universe, an awareness of itself, or power over anything. By definition God is an individual. You are attempting to broaden the definition of God out into a vagueness that is not applicable to this conversation.

The 2nd Admendment is just a law written by men. Over the years its meaning has been interpreted by politically appointed judges. The 2nd Admendment can be unwritten by men and its meaning interpreted differently by a different set of politically appointed judges. Wrapping oneself in the constitution as a means of insisting on the status qou is a ethical trap. The 2nd Admendment is not a natural law akin to the law of conservation or the thoery of relativity. We have a choice in how we choose to govern ourselves.

Perhaps I have viewed the spirit of this debate wrong. Most people by nature are compromising. They see a reasonable solution as existing half way between two competing sides. Pro gun advocates take advantage of that by spooling up the tubro in the opposite direction whenever any reform is discussed. If people ask for better back ground checks so that peole with mental health issues can't get frearms Pro gun advocates go straight to crying about government tyranny. We have seen arguments in this thread imply that guns are a right akin to other natural rights and should be as near to free for all as possible. With reasonable people arguing for measured approaches that allow for the general public to keep and bear arms vs pro gun advocates screaming out for total unfettered access to any and all firearms the middle ground with always error toward the side of pro gun advocates. They win on the issue by placing themselves at such an extreme. Maybe it is time for a true anti gun argument to combat the pro gun argument? Overtime that may change where the "middle ground" lay. Change the rhetoric and deglamorize guns bit.

I am all for solving my countries (USA's) gun problem. I find most of the justifications for firearm ownership ridiculous and dishonest. People in this country just have a fetish for firearms. With that said our laws do provide people the right to own guns. Silly as it may be the majority of our population view gun ownership as a founding principle of this country. Any messaure, like insurance, meant to price people out of firearm ownership overtime will fail. Modest safety features that raise the price a by a few percent the total cost I believe could be tolerated. Something like insurance is a reccuring cost that for people with several or more firearms would be too expensive and prevent them from owning the firearms they wanted. Politically it is a loser. Any politician that campaigns hard on such a proposal would be doomed. Some societal shifts require baby steps. The government mounted an information campaign against tobacco and over time that has significantly reduced use. Meanwhile the government started a war against illicit drugs and that hasn't accomplished anything. People must participate in change. It can not be forced upon then or else they will revolt. Safety devices like safes and gun locks allow for participative change. People can have their firearms; all the government would be doing is incouraging safe keeping of those firearms. It is a baby step but one which can be made. A debate over insurance will only make pro gun advocates dig in deeper in my opinion.

By saying the finger of God one is not merely attempting to describe cause but to an extent motive as well. For God to do something he/she/it must choose; God has intelligence and makes decisions. Such an assumption is beyond any model one could possibly produce to observe it (conscious thought of God). It is a huge detail that is pulled from no where. Dark energy and dark matter are simply names given to unknown values that make various algorithms work.

@ Overtone, as John pointed out Guns are not free. Further more companies make huge profits selling them. Do you feel gun manufacurers should be forced to sell firearms at cost non-profit? It is a "right" after all. I don't have to pay someone for speech. Seperately enviromental regulations relating iron and steel have a directly effect the costs of the material required to produce firearms and thus the cost of those firearms. So has energy prices and transportation laws. If a state increases retail tax or a county increase business fees that impacts the cost of buying a gun too. If you adhering to the 2nd Admendment means the government cannot do anything that impacts the retail cost of a gun then we (USA) needs to roll back centuries worth of taxes, labor laws, and enviromental protection. Firearms, "right" or not, are a product manufactured by corporations who earn billions a year. The government has a role to play in quality assurance and product safety. In all fairness I mentioned helmets in response to Overtone insisting that seatbelt laws were intrusive. In most every part of the country I have live (California, Idaho, Virginia, and now D.C.) helmets are mandatory for children but not adults. Yet adults overwhelming choose to wear the helmets. The example was meant to reflect that once safety standards are introduced over time they are often adopted without intrusive government enforcement. Overtone flipped the context some by implying that bicycle helmet laws in fact have been intrusive and have negatively affected him in someway.

I did not say a the only thing worth discussing about a woman's life. noun: woman; plural noun: women an adult human female. līf/ noun: life; noun: one's life; plural noun: one's lifes 1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. A woman lives independently of another human's body. A woman is an adult and has lived. 75% of fertilized eggs fail to either fuse DNA or implant and result in miscarry. 100% of woman are living breathing people. The two are not equals anymore than a seed planted in dirt is equal to a 300 foot tall Redwood tree. What something may become is different from what it is in real time.

That was my point. God, as properly defined, does not exist and that is no more of a closed minded statement than saying James Bond doesn't exist.

No, not in this thread. I have seen in other threads posters try to say the universe itself is god or that somehow god is the interaction of all matter.

Large portions of crime go unsolved. In cases of spousal abuse, rape, and molestation large portions go unreported. So who is responsible for all those crimes is not clear. It is also worth noting that what is considered a crime is continually changing. Parents who hit their children weren't violating the law 50yrs ago. Crime also evolves. While car theft may be down from previous decades ID theft is soaring. Crime stats at any given time arguably reflect choice of enforcement more than they do any set standard for deviant behavior. In my opinion crime stats are not worth bring up in an abortion debate. Not unless you are able to unpack ALL of the economic, enviromental, judicial, and societal caveats that impact those crime stats. One of the talking points associated with the abortion conversation is that it unequally effects the African American community. That abortion in the African American community is rampant. If that were true wouldn't we see that reflected statistically in our (USA) population demographics? African Americans were 10.5% of the population in 1960 and today African Americans are 13.2%. Where life as a defendable form begins is the only thing worth discussioning with regards to abortion. Anything else is a distractor.

@ John Cuthber and Phi for All, God is like James bond, both have many incarnations but all are complete works of fiction. It is not close minded to say no version of James Bond exists. God as defined by man: Jesus, Buddha, Apollo, Ra, etc does not exist anymore than any version of James Bond exists. Spies, intelligence agencies, Auston Martins, shoe knives, and etc all exist but James Bond most certianly does not. If the definition of God is expanded to cover any non terrestrial life form that may have influenced life on earth at some point in some way than sure; claiming God doesn't exist is closed minded. If we stick to the webster's definition.....that god, the one defined below, doesn't exist: God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions : a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

1 - People can do what they want with their firearms. The gun lock/safe law would simply making gun owners more liable if their firearms end up used in a crime. Firearms owners with gun for self defense can keep them under the pillow if they want. The catch is that if that gun winds up at their childs school killing children they would be prosecutable. 2 - How many lives do you estimate have been saved as a result of seat belts and air bags? How much do you think auto insurance would cost today without seat belts and air bags? Your comments allude to the consequences while ignoring the incredible success. Nothing is perfect and any law can grow or be abused. In the case of seat belts the problems created by the way the law has been administered over time pales in comparison to the problems it solved. Besides there are already many laws that govern our behavior in our homes that are only in enforced after the fact. Hitting ones children is illegal yet police agencies do not go around door to door performing random spot checks to ensure children are okay. We can play devil's advocate with any law and extrapolate it out to the gestapo marching down our streets taking our rights. I grew up well before bicycle helmets became popular. When bicycle helmet requirements for kids first became popular I thought it was riduculous. Since helmet laws only apply to kids I continued cycling for years without a helmet. Over time I noticed seemingly every adult choosing to wear a helmet despite not being legally required. Eventually in 2008 I started working on a campus that required everyone wear a helmet on property. For months I would literally cycle to work with my helmet in my backpack and only put it on when I got to campus. Eventually I got tired of the extra hassle of taking the helmet off and on and just started wearing the damn thing. Not long after I saw a cyclist without a helmet go down and hurt their head so started wearing my helmet everytime. In june of this year I had a nasty spill cycling at about 20mph and if not for my helmet I would have been seriously injured. Bicycle helmets laws were passed for children yet most adults have adopted the practice. Bicycle helmet laws have not been a first step toward intrusive enforcement robbing people of their liberty.

I have heard that discussed. I don't really understand the correlation between insurance and safety though? It is safety requirements like seat belts and shatter proof glass that have made cars safer. Locking up guns would reduce the number that are stolen or wind up discovered by a child in the proverbial closet shoe box. I suppose applications for insurance would mean better back ground checks; I honestly don't feel that is enough. Firearm access needs to be stymied and gun advocates are not about to give up a single firearm. We already have hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation. Firearm insurance doesn't effect that or change the access to those hundreds of millions. Getting them locked up and in positive control of their owners would be a huge step forward when you consider that hundreds of thousands wind up stolen per year. I also believe passing a law requiring insurance would be a lot harder to get passed. Insurance will be labeled by conservatives as a tax. Taxes are right up there with the 2nd Admendment in terms of hot bottom issues conservatives go ballistic over. The beauty of a gun lock/safe storage law is that it would not be intrusive. Only if a firearm owner's firearm is used in a crime would the government investigate whether or not the storage laws had been violated. This would enable firearm owners to conform to the rules at their own pace and decrease the cries of government tyranny that always seem to work there way into these conversations.

As I have previously posted I think gun locks and gun safes should be a requirement. Simply pass a law requiring gun locks on all firearms when not "in use" by the owner and gun safes in any home containing more than X number on firearms. This requirement would be enforceable in the event that a firearm is used in a crime. If you own a firearm that winds up being used in a crime and an investigation shows that you had not used the proper gun locks and safes then you should be charged as a co-conspiractor to the crime the firearm was involved in. Such a simple law would not infringe on the number of guns a person has the right own. The only caveat to iron out is defining "in use". Additionally it is almost 2016. Technology can surely help us. Why not install electronic gun locks that can be control remotely? Example: A parent of a child with life long mental health issues wakes up one morning and notice that their child is not home and that their firearm is missing; so they they enter a code on their smart phone and whalla the firearm is disabled. We should not limit our ideas to background checks and assualt weapon bans. When cars were killing drivers we looked to technology: shatter proof glass, crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, and etc, etc, etc to make vehicles safer while still being just as available to the public. Surely we can do the same for firearms?

@ Waitforufo, the Homicide rate nationally or locally in any specific area is an ambiguous benchmark. In various debates it is used to argue for or against many things. People compared it against police officer levels, racial demographics, age/gender demographics, economics, some even compare it against the use of lead in gasoline. It is a false dichotomy to pretend society is driven by single factors and not an accumulation of them. Whatever factors you think contribute to mass shootings and gun violence in general be it video games, mental health, drugs, culture, religion, etc the broad avaiability guns is still a contributor. The more something is made available, the easier something is made to have, the more people will have and use that something. It is not complicated.

How does this tie into the historicity of Jesus? I am willing to entertain a conversation about the various political impacts of Christianity in Rome but only if it adds this threads purpose. So before we dive into a rabbit hole please state the connection.

Back when Tobacco companies were allowed to campaign unchecked cigarette smoking was in the majority and had a cool favorable image. Just because something is popular today, due to massive spending on advertising, doesn't mean in a generation views cannot change. Gun advocates understand this which is why they keep the money/pressure pouring in.

All religions have there movements of persecution. Judaism's for example has a history of persecution longer and more extensive than Christianity but that doesn't mean Judaism has never had meaningful support. I also think an argument could be that early Roman Christians were very different than modern Christians. There movement was political much as it was religious. Just as Martin Luther King's (Baptist Rev) message was political more than it was religious. MLK was assassinated for his politics and not because he was Christian.

I think the opposite is true. Quantum, Theoretical, Astroparticle and etc physics are far more complicated to wrap ones mind around than merely accepting that God(s) did/do everything. Religion creates simple explanations and asks no tough questions. Believing a reason can be ascertained drives science. Religion merely asks for faith. Science is born from curiosity. Religion is the practice of acceptence.

Great post!!! I have some reservations about the last part. The United States has 5% of the worlds population and over 50% of the world's guns. No other country today or in history has been as flush with firearms yet gun advocates commonly evoke words like tyranny and oppression when debating ANY regulation. The "others" you reference that don't know much or understand the issue are not some group to be distrustful of from the prespective of gun advocates. Those "others" have stood by and cooperated with the status qou which currently allows for regulations (or lack there of) that are as favorable to gun advocates as are possbile. What is or is not reason exists on a sliding scale. What is reasonable to one culture may not be reasonable to another. It is relative. The United States has the world's biggest military (times 10), the largest prison population, is a world leader in death penalty, and has the most firearms of any other nation. All of which reflect a cultural attutide where the sliding scale favors guns. Any implication that gun advocates need worry about a popular uprising of un-informed/highly motivated anti gun activists is not useful to the conversation. Here in the States not only do we have Stand Your Ground Laws in addition to of self defense laws we allow open care. People walk around with military grade rifles slung over there shoulders. That is where the bar sits for what is reasonable in the United States. The strongest legislation that any elected politician in the States would present is still would/will be weighted toward the pro-gun side of the scale. Our (USA) view of what is reasonable seems to be that everyone who is not a known criminal or diagnosed mentally ill person under treatment for violent tendencies, should be able to own and have on their person at any and all times all the guns they want. That is the limit to the debate. No talk of a ban, confiscation, firearm limit, firearm tracking, or anything else exists on a legislative level. The only talk centers around closing gun show and gifting loopholes that allow people to get guns without background checks.

@ Tar, good post +1. I do not believe the U.S. is or has ever been the "greatest country in the world". I think the U.S. is currently and has been for the last 80yrs the most infuential and most powerful country in the world. That infuence & power necessitates a need for the U.S. to also be "the greatest". Plus there are many in the world that would define greatness as power & influence. Where the idea gets ugly for me in when it becomes position of authority. When people who never accomplished anything beyond randomly being born into the country and raised stomp their feet and demand others wait in ine, learn the language, fix their own neighborhoods, fix their own countries, pray the gay away, and etc. Being a citizen of the United States is not a personal achievement or characteristic that set anyone above another. Greatest should be sought and those who seek it should believe/understand it comes with responsibilty. Rather we see a general apathy throughout the country where greatness is assumed and treated like a privalge that is passed down as a birth right. To be a leader(s) we must lead. Building walls, dropping bombs, filling prisons, and pointing fingers is not leadership.