Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Citizen T]

The constitution was written to enumerate and restrict the power of the federal and state governments. It wasn’t entirely about human rights. Some of it is, but not all of it.

The Constitution detailed the structure and powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it recognizes them and put limits in place to prevent the government from violating them. Nothing in how are worded is a grant of a right but an acknowledgment of it and limitations of teh government

[PhaelixWW]

depends on your definition of "prohibition"

I think the working, contextual definition here is "the forbidding of something that was once in common, legal use."

11th took away individuals right to sue states in wrongful cases.

That's not exactly what the 11th does, as people quite demonstrably still sue their own states all the time. The 11th is more about Judiciary jurisdiction; it does not prohibit the citizen's right to bring suit, it just clarifies against whom that suit can be brought.

in the case of this thread somehow guns have become a human right? Maybe a constitutional, but hardly a human right.

The right to self-defense of life is the human right; the 2nd Amendment is a legal, Constitutional right necessary to protect and enforce the human right to self-defense of life.

[Zan15]

A human right you cannot participate because you are denied the tools needed in is hardly a right.

Except by your logic, the prohibition on nukes failed because it didn't deter everyone from trying to get a nuke, just like the laws against murder don't work, or the laws against prostitution, or drugs, or........

failed? show me a case where any individual has even come close to obtaining a nuke....lol....

- - - Updated - - -

It is legal to own bazookas, tanks, etc with proper licenses. All rights have limitations such as inciting violence for speech, nuclear weapons for self defense, etc. The right to democracy is a human right but we don't 10 year old vote.

All US Constitutional rights are human rights, but not all US civil rights are human rights because civil rights are granted by law and are no inalienable.

You left out nukes....but what about my rights to protect myself against the chinese nuclear armed agressors? or hell what about protecting myself against my own nuclear armed country!!!

its my human right?

[Kellhound]

failed? show me a case where any individual has even come close to obtaining a nuke....lol....

- - - Updated - - -



You left out nukes....but what about my rights to protect myself against the chinese nuclear armed agressors? or hell what about protecting myself against my own nuclear armed country!!!

its my human right?

The US' internal prohibitions are not why there are no private nukes in the US. The entire world has a prohibition from nuclear weapons save for the 5 that had them before 1967, yet at least 4 (likely 5) other countries have obtained them. So in that regard, the prohibition on nuclear weapons has failed.

You would need 1000 strategic warheads with the means to deliver them to have a defense against China or the US, that removes it from the realm of self defense.

[Citizen T]

So now you’re claiming the Constitution outlines no rights, just government structure and limitations. What with the constitution being the original document and all amendments. Interesting pivot.

- - - Updated - - -



Except that’s not what the second amendment states in the slightest. It says the right to bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state, not the security of an individual.

The core Constitution itself does not outline any rights. When it was created the founders knew that natural rights were just that and did not feel the need to include them. The Bill of Rights was created when some thought that government needed to be reminded that natural rights existed and limitation placed upon government to prevent abuse of those rights. It was argued that doing so would set the position that only those rights enumerated existed and no others which is why the Ninth was included to ensure that all natural rights were protected - even those not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

- - - Updated - - -

failed? show me a case where any individual has even come close to obtaining a nuke....lol....

- - - Updated - - -



You left out nukes....but what about my rights to protect myself against the chinese nuclear armed agressors? or hell what about protecting myself against my own nuclear armed country!!!

its my human right?

What about my response didn't you understand? I explicitly listed some limitations to rights (including this one) but you completely ignore that to use hyperbolic nonsense as a debate point. When you're ready to actually debate the issue, please let me know.

[zenkai]

The constitution includes all amendments. They can’t be separated.

Are you arguing that we should allow people to have nukes?

[Citizen T]

The constitution includes all amendments. They can’t be separated.

Instead of saying "core Constitution" how about I say "Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights". I'm pretty sure you understood my meaning.

This is starting to get off topic for gun control. We can discuss this further in PMs if you'd like or it may be an interesting topic of it's own in the Politics sub forum. Are Constitution rights Human right?

[Svifnymr]

Are Constitution rights Human right?

Is there any such thing as Human Rights that societies throughout history would agree on?

I think the main thing with the Second Amendment, and other parts of the Constitution, is that these were central ideas that the founders believed. They also recognized that they themselves were not infallible and left a system to alter the basic document in case things changed. There is not enough support to remove the 2nd, but many people don't seem to accept that and believe that gun makers are creating money from nowhere and paying the NRA to pay politicians to vote their way, rather than people buying guns and voting on their own.

I think a big thing that gets lost in the founders, is that a lot of these things come down to protecting people from government over reach and the fundamental idea that people were responsible for the results of their actions. We don't need to ban speech, because if you yell "fire" in a theater, you are responsible for the panic and any damage caused.

[Zan15]

What about my response didn't you understand? I explicitly listed some limitations to rights (including this one) but you completely ignore that to use hyperbolic nonsense as a debate point. When you're ready to actually debate the issue, please let me know.

Back when your right to bear arms was written there were guns....crappy....weak....ass guns.
Compare the guns of yesteryear against them today the exponential growth of killing power of those weapons are/were astronomical.

Supporters of gun rights say it does not matter the power of the weapon or the timing of your rights, you have the right to arm yourself.

Why would that stop at some silly "hyperbolic nonsense"?
Why are their any limitations at all?
Why would you not use the very weapons that the tyrannical govt has available, to safeguarding against that tyrannical government?

You are getting upset at drawing the line after nukes, while gun supporters get upset at people wanting to draw the line at automatic weapons. Some want to draw the line at shotgun style of weapons. Seems for something that you claim is a human right is riddled with, "nah you can't have that much of that human right".

Would be like denying Lobster to someone starving just because lobster is exotic and expensive.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you arguing that we should allow people to have nukes?

According to the 2nd why would arms stop at nukes? if the person, group or govt you are trying to protect yourself from has them, why would you not want to counter that threat with the same level?

that's the argument for people whom do not want automatic weapons banned. They feel regular weapons are not enough.

[zenkai]

According to the 2nd why would arms stop at nukes? if the person, group or govt you are trying to protect yourself from has them, why would you not want to counter that threat with the same level?

that's the argument for people whom do not want automatic weapons banned. They feel regular weapons are not enough.

Let's say your average joe could get his hands on nukes, pretty sure a bipartisanship effort would ensue to close that legal loophole. Until then it's a pointless debate.

[Zan15]

Let's say your average joe could get his hands on nukes, pretty sure a bipartisanship effort would ensue to close that legal loophole. Until then it's a pointless debate.

unless the NRA got behind my push!!! then I am all set!
I can see the propaganda now!!


"first they came for your nukes, you did nothing......then they came for your guns...…"

[zenkai]

unless the NRA got behind my push!!! then I am all set!
I can see the propaganda now!!


"first they came for your nukes, you did nothing......then they came for your guns...…"

It's the NRA not the NNA

[Citizen T]

Back when your right to bear arms was written there were guns....crappy....weak....ass guns.
Compare the guns of yesteryear against them today the exponential growth of killing power of those weapons are/were astronomical.

Supporters of gun rights say it does not matter the power of the weapon or the timing of your rights, you have the right to arm yourself.

Why would that stop at some silly "hyperbolic nonsense"?
Why are their any limitations at all?
Why would you not use the very weapons that the tyrannical govt has available, to safeguarding against that tyrannical government?

You are getting upset at drawing the line after nukes, while gun supporters get upset at people wanting to draw the line at automatic weapons. Some want to draw the line at shotgun style of weapons. Seems for something that you claim is a human right is riddled with, "nah you can't have that much of that human right".

Would be like denying Lobster to someone starving just because lobster is exotic and expensive.

- - - Updated - - -



According to the 2nd why would arms stop at nukes? if the person, group or govt you are trying to protect yourself from has them, why would you not want to counter that threat with the same level?

that's the argument for people whom do not want automatic weapons banned. They feel regular weapons are not enough.

Do you assume that the writers of the Constitution were uneducated morons? During their lifetime, they saw dramatic improvements of firearms. At the time of the writing, arms consisted of knives, swords, spears, bows, pistols, rifles, shotguns (blunderbus), rapid fire firearms, cannons and explosives and even rockets. Do you truly believe that the most educated people of the time were incapable of imagining that "arms" would improve over time? They didn't say guns, swords, or cannons - they used the term "arms" in the second amendment to include essentially anything available to the standing army.

Now, I'm not going to debate nuclear weapons with you. I've already stated that there are limits to all rights.

[Zan15]

It's the NRA not the NNA

so if they are the National Rifle Association...then why do they fight for handgun rights.....just saying....if you want to be so literal vs them fighting for the right to "arms".

they might be a gun advocate rights group, but they are also a 2nd amendment advocate group....

"While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

[zenkai]

so if they are the National Rifle Association...then why do they fight for handgun rights.....just saying....if you want to be so literal vs them fighting for the right to "arms".

they might be a gun advocate rights group, but they are also a 2nd amendment advocate group....

"While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

Rifle > Guns is a much shorter than leap from Rifle >>>>>> Nuke


Do you see the NRA fighting for hand grenade rights?

[Zan15]

I've already stated that there are limits to all rights.

thank you, full circle. guess we are back to square one of legal rights vs human rights.

guess we drop it here per your prior instructions since we need a whole other topic to debate this issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Rifle > Guns is a much shorter than leap from Rifle >>>>>> Nuke
Do you see the NRA fighting for hand grenade rights?

Listen you were the one being so literal…about their name
They are the ones with their organizations definitions, not me.

[zenkai]

Listen you were the one being so literal…about their name
They are the ones with their organizations definitions, not me.

Yeah but I think the point you are trying to make is rather ridiculous. I mean I don't know how to explain a common sense thing that the NRA is all about gun rights and not nuke/explosive/tank/air fighter rights.

[Zan15]

Yeah but I think the point you are trying to make is rather ridiculous. I mean I don't know how to explain a common sense thing that the NRA is all about gun rights and not nuke/explosive/tank/air fighter rights.

Don't know if I have to go back and describe what sarcasm is in my original post or not.....but hey its your rabbit hole. Feel free.

[Ghostpanther]

Is there any such thing as Human Rights that societies throughout history would agree on?

I think the main thing with the Second Amendment, and other parts of the Constitution, is that these were central ideas that the founders believed. They also recognized that they themselves were not infallible and left a system to alter the basic document in case things changed. There is not enough support to remove the 2nd, but many people don't seem to accept that and believe that gun makers are creating money from nowhere and paying the NRA to pay politicians to vote their way, rather than people buying guns and voting on their own.

I think a big thing that gets lost in the founders, is that a lot of these things come down to protecting people from government over reach and the fundamental idea that people were responsible for the results of their actions. We don't need to ban speech, because if you yell "fire" in a theater, you are responsible for the panic and any damage caused.

I would think a individual's right to defend themselves would be a fundamental right every society would agree on. It is the extent of what way we can, that divides the US from most other countries. I think Guatemala is the only other country in the world which grants it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

The controlling governments would much rather have a populace that is not armed or at least, not armed very well. The criminals certainly would rather have a disarmed citizenry.

For myself, the Second Amendment grants every citizen the right to use firearms for self defense, which in turn enables the weaker ones to better accomplish that. Therefore, the right to self defense is more logical for a larger portion of the populace.

[Stormdash]

Why you seem to think it's anything but childish to respond with "there is no valid argument in favor of widespread firearm ownership" with "well you'll never change it so nyeehhh"? Lol.

You really aren't doing anything to dispel the notion that gun ownership in America is a nationalistic cult.

A) I don't give a good gd what cultural stereotype you have of gun ownership
B) I don't need to justify my natural, civil, and human rights. Actual ones, not BS pilfering like "you have a right to paid vacation from your voluntary employment". I'm talking in this case of the right to defend one's own life, liberty, property, and community extending to include using arms - the human advantage of nature, tools, the product of our ingenuity - and not have to lower ourselves like animals and only be able to defend these things by literal tooth and claw.

I regret with my whole heart that so much of the rest of the world has been subjugated as it has on this front, but there is no reality in which you will ever live in which the American people have joined them as a disarmed citizenry.

- - - Updated - - -

if it was a basic human right then the govt, the way its set up, would have to provide guns for everyone in order to meet their very basic human rights.
Whoot free guns for everyone!!! (yes I know not really free since taxes would pay for all our new "free" guns)

Anything that has to be provided for you by others isn't a "right" anymore than North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". Ugh, the things they teach kids these days.

If you can't make the argument for it existing of and by the fact of your existence as a human being, it isn't a "right". Nothing that's a right is something "given" to you or exists only if someone is available to assure it for you. It's your "right" because you may always press to vindicate it and anyone violating it is understood to be offending your dignity by doing so, whether you succeed in stopping them or not.