Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[John Cuthber]

"It's based on the KKK never getting started in its lynch habit if its targets had had guns handy. And that is a reasonable, evidence backed, viewpoint. It should be treated as such. "

And if both sides had guns handy?

We will never know- so it's hardly "evidence based".

 

You just demonstrated my point- the group with the big guns got away with a lot of killing and in a way they still do. Have a look at the stats for the colour of people shot by the police.

(Thought I'm not altogether sure that the KKK are a realistic model of the government.)

 

Hitler's rise to power wasn't hindered by the fact that plenty of decent law abiding citizens still had guns (and the knowledge to use them) from WWI

 

Tyranny is most likely to turn up with a smiling face, offering to protect you from the "outsiders".

Now imagine that the "outsiders" are the government and the smiling faces are those of the NRA.

 

It works both ways.

 

Oh boy! I see the constitution is still popping up as a "reason" for things.

It can be rewritten.

It has been.

It could be again.

 

So, if you think those rights come from the constitution and the constitution comes from [whatever group or individual has the authority to rewrite it] then your rights are at the whim of that group.

 

Well, yes they are, and what if that group decides to change its mind and ban guns?

What if they decide to enforce that whim by military power?

Edited July 27, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

And if both sides had guns handy?

Then terrorism by either side faces an armed target - this makes it difficult to employ as an agency of government oppression and tyranny.

 

We will never know- so it's hardly "evidence based".

Its based on observation of many similar government backed oppressions throughout history and around the planet, and ordinary reasoning from familiarity with the tactics employed by the KKK as well as the others. It's very difficult, to the point of impossibility, to do stuff like that to people who have weapons.

 

Tyranny is most likely to turn up with a smiling face, offering to protect you from the "outsiders".

I listed a small selection of the dozens of examples of imposed tyrannies - that is indeed how they are often justified, but the issue here is how they are in fact imposed.

 

Now imagine that the "outsiders" are the government and the smiling faces are those of the NRA.

The NRA smiling? Whatever - That would be an imposition of chaos, not tyranny. . Against that there is the government, as the Black Panthers discovered.

 

Oh boy! I see the constitution is still popping up as a "reason" for things.

It can be rewritten.

It has been.

It could be again.

So rewrite it, if you really think it's in the way of sane gun control. (It isn't).

Advocating that the Constitution be set aside because it could be amended is one of those irrational and threatening extremist stances that render the whole US situation a dysfunctional mess. It's a threat. Don't threaten people you need to gain trust from.

 

So, if you think those rights come from the constitution and the constitution comes from [whatever group or individual has the authority to rewrite it] then your rights are at the whim of that group.

The writers of the Constitution were not acting on a whim. Neither are the amenders, interpreters, etc.

 

Well, yes they are, and what if that group decides to change its mind and ban guns?

What if they decide to enforce that whim by military power?

Gibberish. What "group" do you think is involved here? How are they changing the Constitution?

btw:

 

Hitler's rise to power wasn't hindered by the fact that plenty of decent law abiding citizens still had guns (and the knowledge to use them) from WWi

The successful tyranny he launched initially faced an all but completely unarmed population of Jews (as did his expansion of the terror campaign into Poland and other countries). And he had to get the decent, law abiding "good Germans" on his side first anyway.

His first try faced an armed force of policemen, with little community support - a bunch of his buddies were shot, and the whole thing fell apart.

Edited July 27, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Even in England I still have the right to do both I just have to prove I’m worthy of that right.

 

 

Why is proving your competence with a firearm such a difficult concept, you accept it with vehicles?

 

Especially when the alternative is allowing the “terrorists” and “wingnuts” free and easy access to weaponry; what are the supporters of the status quo, in this thread, so afraid of (the test)?

[waitforufo]

For many of you the origin of natural human rights seems to be at the crux of this debate. I personally find that fact that educated people from western civilization even need to question the fact of natural human rights. Natural human rights is at the center of liberalism. It is why we ended slavery, apartheid, why we have concern for Palestinians, and North Koreans and why we are appalled by the Islamic State.

 

Were did natural rights come from. Well first, it's right in the name. Natural rights come from nature. Where did nature come from? For all practical purposes I think it started with the big bag, and then after a time evolution was pretty important. Some find comfort in believing that god or gods played a part in this natural event. They are free to do that if they choose but it is not essential.

 

Can I survive without my natural human rights. Not as a human being no. I am robbed of my humanity when my rights are denied. I'm shocked that anyone, particularly educated people, would argue with that fact.

 

 

Now just because it is the last post before this one, Let me reply to dimreepr regarding testing my competency to enjoy my natural rights. During Jim Crow, and likely before that, people in several of the United States were denied there natural rights by the means of testing their competency. This was particularly true of voting rights. So we have a history of denying people their rights via testing in the United States. That sort of thing isn't tolerated in the United States anymore.

[Prometheus]

Your incredulity lends no weight to your argument that rights originated with the big bang.

 

The very fact that humans once happily subjected people to, and others accepted, slavery demonstrates these rights have not existed for all of human history, let alone the universes history.

 

You have a strange definition of human being. According to your reasoning no one before the 17th century was a human being - they didn't even know about natural rights, so how could they exercise them. We we'll have to rethink evolutionary theory.

 

Nice dodging of specific questions by the way, but i guess that is your right.

[John Cuthber]

 

The writers of the Constitution were not acting on a whim. Neither are the amenders, interpreters, etc.

So, both the imposition and the removal of prohibition were absolutely right?

Slavery was fundamentally right and so was its abolition.

 

Or the constitution is a product of its time and can legitimately change.

 

However the real doozy is this

"Advocating that the Constitution be set aside because it could be amended is one of those irrational and threatening extremist stances that render the whole US situation a dysfunctional mess. It's a threat. Don't threaten people you need to gain trust from. "

 

Nobody suggested setting aside the constitution did they?

Because it can be amended is precisely the reason why there is no need to set it aside.

[dimreepr]

For many of you the origin of natural human rights seems to be at the crux of this debate.

 

 

Not for me, I really couldn’t care if you choose to call it a right or a privilege (my choice), can you live without a gun seems to be the question, at hand, to which the answer is a definite yes.

That sort of thing isn't tolerated in the United States anymore.

 

 

Other than proving your competence to drive... hmmm.

[waitforufo]

Your incredulity lends no weight to your argument that rights originated with the big bang.

 

The very fact that humans once happily subjected people to, and others accepted, slavery demonstrates these rights have not existed for all of human history, let alone the universes history.

 

You have a strange definition of human being. According to your reasoning no one before the 17th century was a human being - they didn't even know about natural rights, so how could they exercise them. We we'll have to rethink evolutionary theory.

 

Nice dodging of specific questions by the way, but i guess that is your right.

Gee, I'm sorry you missed out on the enlightenment. It was an important part of history and in understanding the human experience. You should find the time to study it.

 

The train wreck of human history that occurs whenever people lose sight of human rights, slavery being just one, proves that natural human rights do in fact exist.

 

To be fully human. You must be in possession of all your human rights and respect the full human rights of others. I'm really surprised and saddened that there are still some that can't accept that.

 

 

Not for me, I really couldn’t care if you choose to call it a right or a privilege (my choice), ....

Maybe you should look up the meanings of the words right and privilege. The dictionary can be a remarkable fount of understanding.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

To be fully human. You must be in possession of all your human rights and respect the full human rights of others. I'm really surprised and saddened that there are still some that can't accept that.

So Texans are not fully human then.

I will let you explain that to them.

[dimreepr]

Maybe you should look up the meanings of the words right and privilege. The dictionary can be a remarkable fount of understanding.

 

 

 

And maybe you should just answer the questions.

[waitforufo]

And maybe you should just answer the questions.

What question have I missed? Perhaps you can recap. Maybe you simply don't like my answers.

So Texans are not fully human then.

I will let you explain that to them.

Remind me. What right are Texans missing? If in fact they are denied any of there rights then yes they are not fully human and they should fight to regain their humanity.

[dimreepr]

What question have I missed? Perhaps you can recap. Maybe you simply don't like my answers.

 

 

Let’s start with why you think a vehicular competence test is OK whilst a weaponry competence test is superfluous?

[John Cuthber]

Famously they are denied the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions- they are not allowed to buy three necked flasks.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm

 

 

I guess not many of them lose sleep over it,but it illustrates the point that the state is quite capable of removing rights for no good reason.

Remember folks; if you outlaw three necked flasks then only outlaws will have them.

Edited July 27, 2015 by John Cuthber

[waitforufo]

 

 

Let’s start with why you think a vehicular competence test is OK whilst a weaponry competence test is superfluous?

Because driving is a privilege, Like hunting is a privilege. You have to take a hunting safety course to get a hunting license as well.

Owning guns is a right.

But then you don't recognize the difference between rights and privileges so I don't believe you are capable of understanding that answer.

By the way I can own a car without having a licence. I just can't drive it on public roads.

 

Famously they are denied the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions- they are not allowed to buy three necked flasks.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm

 

 

I guess not many of them lose sleep over it,but it illustrates the point that the state is quite capable of removing rights for no good reason.

Remember folks; if you outlaw three necked flasks then only outlaws will have them.

Now this is an interesting point. I'm sure those in Texas that want to own three necked flasks own them. They like all good US citizens tell the government to f*ck off when it comes to the ownership of three necked flasks, as they should. Doing so is a fight for their rights. Thanks for making my point.

Edited July 27, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

Because driving is a privilege, Like hunting is a privilege. You have to take a hunting safety course to get a hunting license as well.

Owning guns is a right.

But then you don't recognize the difference between rights and privileges so I don't believe you are capable of understanding that answer.

By the way I can own a car without having a licence. I just can't drive it on public roads.

 

 

LMAO... Look at it this way

Or...

 

[John Cuthber]

Because driving is a privilege, Like hunting is a privilege. You have to take a hunting safety course to get a hunting license as well.

Owning guns is a right.

But then you don't recognize the difference between rights and privileges so I don't believe you are capable of understanding that answer.

By the way I can own a car without having a licence. I just can't drive it on public roads.

 

Now this is an interesting point. I'm sure those in Texas that want to own three necked flasks own them. They like all good US citizens tell the government to f*ck off when it comes to the ownership of three necked flasks, as they should. Doing so is a fight for their rights. Thanks for making my point.

Unless they are already in trouble

https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/buychem.igor.html

[waitforufo]

 

 

LMAO... Look at it this way

Or...

 

You obviously have not been paying attention to my posts. I think I have been very clear that racism is bad. In fact is goes against everything I have said about natural human rights. So sorry, you can't bait me into your racist views or racist web sites.

 

Unless they are already in trouble

https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/buychem.igor.html

I live in Washington state. We already won the three necked flask fight here. Yeah, there were casualties. There always are when people fight for their rights. But after a while the government realizes that having laws on the books that nobody follows is a bad idea. So all I can tell my fellow Americans in Texas is keep up the fight. Human rights are worth it.

Edited July 28, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

You obviously have not been paying attention to my posts. I think I have been very clear that racism is bad. In fact is goes against everything I have said about natural human rights. So sorry, you can't bait me into your racist views or racist web sites.

 

 

Point well missed.

How many innocent people have to die before you accept this, so called, right comes with responsibilities both personally and collectively?

 

Just because it’s written down doesn’t absolve you or your fellows of that responsibility.

[waitforufo]

 

Just because it’s written down doesn’t absolve you or your fellows of that responsibility.

Who says I have not been responsible? I have never broken the law with respect to firearms. I have never had a hunting violation. I'm a model firearms owner. I was taught firearms responsibility by my parents who were taught by their parents and so on. No government needed.

 

By the way, how long do you think it takes a fully competent and sane person, not a danger to themselves or others, to lose their nut? In my life I have seen three people have mental breakdowns where they had to be committed for a short period. Two co-workers and a close friend. The breakdown process for each took no more then two weeks. US v. Heller and US v. McDonald both ruled that the government could not stop people from having guns in their homes and controlling those guns in their homes as they please because they have the right to bear arms. So as long as people have guns, and losing your mind happens quickly, we will have the kind of shootings that happened in the La. theater. Classes and testing won't make a difference. In fact it may only make such persons more deadly.

[iNow]

So as long as people have guns, and losing your mind happens quickly, we will have the kind of shootings that happened in the La. theater. Classes and testing won't make a difference. In fact it may only make such persons more deadly.

This would probably be a good point if we didn't have so many counter examples in other nations proving it so robustly and trivially wrong... Other nations that have similarly high rates of gun ownership yet only a fraction of the needless gun death you seem to consider acceptable and unchangeable.

[dimreepr]

Who says I have not been responsible?

 

 

I do, certainly in terms of your collective responsibility due to the fact that you’re arguing to maintain the current system.

 

 

I have never broken the law with respect to firearms. I have never had a hunting violation. I'm a model firearms owner. I was taught firearms responsibility by my parents who were taught by their parents and so on

 

 

 

So why are you afraid of a test to show you’re as competent as you think you are.

 

 

By the way, how long do you think it takes a fully competent and sane person, not a danger to themselves or others, to lose their nut? In my life I have seen three people have mental breakdowns where they had to be committed for a short period. Two co-workers and a close friend. The breakdown process for each took no more then two weeks.

 

 

 

This argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn’t it, but so what? You can’t legislate against mental breakdown but you can legislate to restrict the number of guns in the system and thus limit the damage when they do go postal.

 

 

US v. Heller and US v. McDonald both ruled that the government could not stop people from having guns in their homes and controlling those guns in their homes as they please because they have the right to bear arms

 

 

 

Again so what? That can be changed.

 

 

So as long as people have guns, and losing your mind happens quickly, we will have the kind of shootings that happened in the La. theater.

 

 

 

TBH I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this, especially as these kind of events don’t tend to happen in England.

 

 

Classes and testing won't make a difference. In fact it may only make such persons more deadly.

 

 

 

Ha ha ha do you really think a few lessons on responsible gun ownership make people more dangerous?

Edited July 28, 2015 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Looking back through this thread, it's fascinating (sad??) how many of these arguments regarding interpretation of the amendment and SCOTUS rulings currently being used I already dismantled more than 15 months ago.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=789430

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=794642

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=801891

 

And more here:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222390/

According to the 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.9 Prior to the Heller decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning. In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

 

Two primary legal reasons explained this virtual unanimity. The first involves something lawyers call the incorporation doctrine. When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rightssuch as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clausesinitially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included inor incorporated intothe more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.12

 

Until the McDonald decision, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights not so incorporated. In fact, in a pair of 19th-century casesUnited States v Cruikshank (1876)13 and Presser v Illinois (1886)14the court found that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. Numerous state laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis.15,16

 

The second reason why most courts, before Heller and McDonald, had little trouble upholding gun laws involves the language of the Second Amendment itself, specifically the militia clause preceding the right to keep and bear arms. In 1939, the Supreme Court decided United States v Miller, a case in which 2 individuals challenged their criminal indictment under a federal law restricting sawed-off shotguns.17 Because Miller involved a federal law, the earlier Cruikshank and Presser decisions were not directly applicable. In Miller, the court upheld the indictments, ruling that the Second Amendment did not protect the right to keep and bear a firearm that did not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia18 (see also Lewis v United States19). Miller was a relatively brief opinion without substantial discussion of the basis for its ruling. Nevertheless, lower courts routinely upheld federal and state firearm laws citing Miller.20,21

In the pages of this journal in 1993, an article concluded:

 

At some time in the future, the Supreme Court may, in fact, overrule Presser and Miller and grant to the NRA and others the interpretation of the Second Amendment they seek. Until that time, however, public health advocates should understand that the Second Amendment poses no real obstacle to the implementation of even broad gun control legislation.63(p1776)

[waitforufo]

You folks crack me up with your training classes. What do you think they teach you at those classes. I'll tell you. They teach you how to load your weapon safely. They teach you to always point the gun in a safe direction when you are not intending to shoot. They teach you to never put your finger on the trigger until you are intending to shoot. They teach you how to operate safety mechanisms if your weapon has them. Many don't. They talk about safe storage. Okay that's 15 minutes. Then they teach you how to shoot with accuracy. The continue accuracy training until your accuracy reaches a qualifying level. The goal of this training is to make each shot a deadly shot.

 

These classes are nothing more than a tax. A tax intended to make firearm ownership prohibitive.

 

Just like poll taxes were intended to suppress voting. No difference.

[dimreepr]

You folks crack me up with your training classes. What do you think they teach you at those classes. I'll tell you. They teach you how to load your weapon safely. They teach you to always point the gun in a safe direction when you are not intending to shoot. They teach you to never put your finger on the trigger until you are intending to shoot. They teach you how to operate safety mechanisms if your weapon has them. Many don't. They talk about safe storage. Okay that's 15 minutes. Then they teach you how to shoot with accuracy. The continue accuracy training until your accuracy reaches a qualifying level. The goal of this training is to make each shot a deadly shot.

 

These classes are nothing more than a tax. A tax intended to make firearm ownership prohibitive.

 

Just like poll taxes were intended to suppress voting. No difference.

 

 

So what is it you fear about them exactly, the cost, the need to be accurate (thus not shooting random strangers) or, since your level of ignorance seems roughly equal to your level of compassion, the knowledge (of what direction is safe)?

Maybe you should read the topic title again and pray your attitude doesn’t mean you have to mourn one of your own children (family or friend).

[John Cuthber]

When it comes down to it, America still has a lot of guns because many people think that a dead kid every day is an acceptable price to pay for owning guns.

All the rest of the debate is window dressing to that fact.

 

It seems odd to me.

Edited July 28, 2015 by John Cuthber