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

[iNow]

What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court will start diminishing the rights of the people.

It is actually an issue of public health, which generally trumps individual rights.

[waitforufo]

It is actually an issue of public health, which generally trumps individual rights.

Really, that is all you got left?

[iNow]

Will you please clarify your question / elucidate further the reason for your disagreement?

[overtone]

It is actually an issue of public health, which generally trumps individual rights.

The suspicion that such an approach is actually behind the gun control advocacy is one of the threats that cause reflexive rejection of any and all gun control measures however sensible they may appear.

 

That is a threat.

Edited September 12, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Will you please clarify your point / elucidate further the reason for your suggesting that protection of public health via smart specific regulations is somehow a threat resulting in reflexive rejection of any proposal?

[dimreepr]

Yet you provide no argument based on law at all.

 

 

Given your only valid argument to keep guns is “fuck off, I like guns”; do I really need to, either, present a lawful argument or indeed present any other argument than children are dying because of guns?

 

 

Whatever, the courts choose to take; they may also choose to give back.

 

While this is true, it is uncommon. Again, look up "stare decisis". You have Google don't you?

 

If it’s true, however uncommon, then your entire argument fails and you’re just left with...

 

BTW you may want to google “how many times has the US constitution been amended?”

[John Cuthber]

Cliven Bundy's standoff of the US Federal Government would be one, anyway.

 

...

 

But it would be simpler to just stipulate that the writers of the Constitution may have been simply wrong about the security needs of a modern industrial empire. So?

One man isn't a militia, and the last time I checked, the Federal government was still in charge in the US.

 

The Constitution may have been simply wrong about the security needs of a modern industrial empire. So there's no justification of the right to bear arms.

Now, can someone please explain that to waitforufo?

[waitforufo]

It is actually an issue of public health, which generally trumps individual rights.

BTW, thank you for demonstrating you enthusiasm for eliminating individual rights.

 

Will you please clarify your question / elucidate further the reason for your disagreement?

Because in the United States, public health is dependent on the security of the free state.

 

Given your only valid argument to keep guns is “fuck off, I like guns”; do I really need to, either, present a lawful argument or indeed present any other argument than children are dying because of guns?

If it’s true, however uncommon, then your entire argument fails and you’re just left with...

 

BTW you may want to google “how many times has the US constitution been amended?”

You just won't give up on putting words in my mouth. Keep it up. I think it is funny.

 

Also, I have encouraged those desiring gun control to attempt to amend the constitution. I have wished them good luck.

 

One man isn't a militia, and the last time I checked, the Federal government was still in charge in the US.

 

The Constitution may have been simply wrong about the security needs of a modern industrial empire. So there's no justification of the right to bear arms.

Now, can someone please explain that to waitforufo?

The US army's last big recruitment campaign was centered on the phrase "an army of one"

 

 

So why not a militia of one?

 

Again John, the people are in charge in the USA.

 

Can someone please explain to John Cuthber that I am simply defending my natural rights, and following the laws of my country.

[overtone]

One man isn't a militia, and the last time I checked, the Federal government was still in charge in the US.

So?

 

 

The Constitution may have been simply wrong about the security needs of a modern industrial empire. So there's no justification of the right to bear arms.

Now, can someone please explain that to waitforufo?

Let's start with the easier part: is there some way to get you to comprehend the concept of a "militia"?

 

Will you please clarify your point / elucidate further the reason for your suggesting that protection of public health via smart specific regulations is somehow a threat resulting in reflexive rejection of any proposal?

There is no right, liberty, or personal decision of any kind that does not occasionally have adverse consequences to "public health" as measured by some people screwing up and hurting themselves or their children.

One needs some confidence in one's neighbor's notions of "smart" and "specific", in other words. That's going to be a hard sell after the past 28 pages here, or the past 28 years of US political discourse.

Edited September 12, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Now, can someone please explain that to waitforufo?

 

 

Many have tried, but alas, that particular wall of denial has yet to be breeched.

 

 

You just won't give up on putting words in my mouth. Keep it up. I think it is funny.

 

 

 

You think it’s funny????

 

Every dead child that is found (through a gun related accident), you've conspired to kill. Laugh it off hero...

Edited September 12, 2015 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

Many have tried, but alas, that particular wall of denial has yet to be breeched.

What exactly am I denying?

 

You think it’s funny????

 

Every dead child that is found (through a gun related accident), you've conspired to kill. Laugh it off hero...

I think it is funny that you insist on putting words in my mouth when I am simply defending my natural rights. Rights recognized in my nations constitution and supported by Supreme Court rulings. Recent modern rulings. Those Supreme court rulings are common laws, by the way, which hold more weight then statutory law because common laws nullify statutory laws. Being from the UK one would think that you would understand that. You are simply making a fool of yourself by denying those facts.

 

If you were capable of reason on this subject rather than emotion you would understand I not complicit in any of these accidental deaths. No more than I am complicit in swimming pool drownings.

Edited September 12, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

What exactly am I denying?

 

That the constitution might be wrong and need changing because it thinks that a lot of people with guns is the same as a well ordered militia.

[waitforufo]

That the constitution might be wrong and need changing because it thinks that a lot of people with guns is the same as a well ordered militia.

Again, the citizens of the United States are free to amend the constitution. They are also capable of calling a constitutional convention and rewriting the entire thing. I wish those citizens that desire to do either of those things good luck.

[John Cuthber]

Again, the citizens of the United States are free to amend the constitution. They are also capable of calling a constitutional convention and rewriting the entire thing. I wish those citizens that desire to do either of those things good luck.

So, still not facing up to the fact that the amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea.

[MonDie]

Ok, let's try baby steps.

Do you accept that it would have been a problem if they had said "US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to using unicorns to pull the ploughs on the music tree farms"?

They can't ban my nail gun! I like that it's dangerous! That's why I bought it!

Edited September 12, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

So, still not facing up to the fact that the amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea.

So, still not facing up to the fact that it doesn't matter.

Here, by the way, is an image of what happens to children who don't live securely in a free state.

 

Edited September 12, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Also, I have encouraged those desiring gun control to attempt to amend the constitution. I have wished them good luck.

It's already been demonstrated that improvements and regulations are entirely possible and allowed within the existing constitutional framework and that an amendment is not prerequisite. Why are you choosing to remain willfully ignorant of this simple point?

 

With that said, I concede your point that it's within our rights to add another amendment to the constitution to somehow reduce guns or gun deaths, but feel it is entirely unlikely to pass given current public sentiment on this topic. I agree with you completely on both fronts, which is why my position is that it's possible to better regulate within the current structure.

[John Cuthber]

So, still not facing up to the fact that it doesn't matter.

 

 

It matters to the families of about 20 children a day.

[MonDie]

Although I don't want this to derail the thread, I wanted to share a potentially relevant grammatical insight.

 

If each of 5 dogs eats 1 kg, then do the dogs eat 1 or 5 kg?

I contend that both answer are correct. Individually the dogs eat 1 kg, but collectively they eat 5. This ambiguity arises from having a pluralized subject, but it's not noticed until we encounter an example where the individual and collective interpretations differ in meaning. Most of of the time it doesn't make a difference.

Could the 2nd ammendment conflict arise from this individual/collective interpretation dilemma?

They usually say "right of the people", not "right of the person".

[iNow]

Perhaps, but as waitforufo has rightfully pointed out more than once, the SCOTUS has already ruled that individuals do have a right to own.

 

To my previous point, though, this still doesn't mean that various limits, regulations, and restrictions are in any way disallowed, especially since we already have several of the aforementioned limits, regulations, and restrictions in place today.

[overtone]

Could the 2nd ammendment conflict arise from this individual/collective interpretation dilemma?

No. Laws necessarily apply to "the people" just as the amendment does, and the amendment forbids some of them.

 

 

 

 

That the constitution might be wrong and need changing because it thinks that a lot of people with guns is the same as a well ordered militia.

Anyone literate would deny that - the Constitution says nothing of the kind.

 

It indicates that a lot of people with guns is necessary for a well ordered militia - which is true. It's a basic requirement - one cannot raise an armed militia from a disarmed population.

 

It says that a well ordered militia is necessary for the security of a free State - which is probably also true (we have many examples in support), at least in the long run, but even if wrong for some new and modern reason is nevertheless definitely written there and quite plainly.

 

 

 

 

Every dead child that is found (through a gun related accident), you've conspired to kill.

Both sides. Nobody who represents that kind of reasoning will get political power if I can help it. It's too big a threat. Edited September 13, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

 

It says that a well ordered militia is necessary for the security of a free State - which is probably also true (we have many examples in support),

Many?

I saw one and it's somewhere between dubious and invalid.

I live in a counter-example.

One counter example is enough to destroy the assertion that something is necessary.

[dimreepr]

Both sides. Nobody who represents that kind of reasoning will get political power if I can help it. It's too big a threat.

 

 

You think compassion is a threat? I have to assume you’re a Trump supporter.

[waitforufo]

To your comment "So, still not facing up to the fact that the amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea", John, I responded that it does not matter. You replied...

It matters to the families of about 20 children a day.

I'm sure it does. The law however, is the law. Feelings about a law don't matter. The belief by some, that the ideas upon which a law is based are outdated doesn't matter. All that matters is that the law is in force. Now if you can reach the requirement to change a specific law then that matters, and the law is changed. Those requirements for changing firearms laws in the United States is rather high. Currently the US constitution, State constitutions and Supreme Court rulings, recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right of human beings. That is a very high hurdle for change. A hurdle not likely to be reached currently, if ever, in the United States. Even Red Leader now concedes this point. That is why I responded to your post that it doesn't matter if the second "amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea."

 

It's already been demonstrated that improvements and regulations are entirely possible and allowed within the existing constitutional framework and that an amendment is not prerequisite. Why are you choosing to remain willfully ignorant of this simple point?

With that said, I concede your point that it's within our rights to add another amendment to the constitution to somehow reduce guns or gun deaths, but feel it is entirely unlikely to pass given current public sentiment on this topic. I agree with you completely on both fronts, which is why my position is that it's possible to better regulate within the current structure.

 

Perhaps, but as waitforufo has rightfully pointed out more than once, the SCOTUS has already ruled that individuals do have a right to own.

To my previous point, though, this still doesn't mean that various limits, regulations, and restrictions are in any way disallowed, especially since we already have several of the aforementioned limits, regulations, and restrictions in place today.

I hope you also appreciate that by leaving the constitutional recognition of and individuals natural human right to keep and bear arms in place, that all of those regulations you wish for will be challenged. Recent history indicates that many will fail that challenge. Those that pass that challenge will not likely produce the results you are seeking.

 

For example. Safe storage laws. It has been pointed out previously that a firearm stored in a safe negates the effective self defense use of that firearm. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the explicit purpose of self defense. So, in my opinion, such a regulation is likely to fail. By the way the Lanza home had a gun safe. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/warrants-released-newtown-investigation-article-1.1301082.

 

Also, one needs to consider the cost to individuals of the regulations you are seeking. If the right to keep and bear arms is to be available to all, regardless of financial circumstances, then government regulations must not make the exercise of that rights cost prohibitive. That would be denying the right to keep and bear arms to the poor. So inexpensive guns cannot be prohibited, nor can expensive safe storage devices be required.

 

You think compassion is a threat? I have to assume you’re a Trump supporter.

the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

No I think Trump is a misogynistic jerk with the temperament of a 5 year old. But why even ask?

[John Cuthber]

To your comment "So, still not facing up to the fact that the amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea", John, I responded that it does not matter. You replied...

I'm sure it does. The law however, is the law. Feelings about a law don't matter. The belief by some, that the ideas upon which a law is based are outdated doesn't matter. All that matters is that the law is in force. Now if you can reach the requirement to change a specific law then that matters, and the law is changed. Those requirements for changing firearms laws in the United States is rather high. Currently the US constitution, State constitutions and Supreme Court rulings, recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right of human beings. That is a very high hurdle for change. A hurdle not likely to be reached currently, if ever, in the United States. Even Red Leader now concedes this point. That is why I responded to your post that it doesn't matter if the second "amendment, as currently used, is based on an outdated idea."

 

 

It matters.

Because it is true it is possible that lots of people will come to believe it (in spite of the best efforts of others).

And if that happens then the law will change.

So it matters that it is true.

If it wasn't true then it would be much more difficult to get people to accept it (not impossible- clearly).

 

So, it matters.