Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

Meaningless.

In other words you're sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't want to hear it.

[Mormolyce]

In other words you're sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't want to hear it.

That... you consider your pissweak background checks "gun control"?

You're free to engage in that farce if you like.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course the kitchen knife is not covered in the Second. But you could still use one in self defense if attacked in your home and no court is going to convict you of a crime here in the US.

Wrong. Our Supreme Court has ruled a citizen can use the Second Amendment as a grounds for self defense.

It is still a form of gun control to the extent it kept over 1 million people who should not have guns, from having them legally.

You're getting very confused because you don't properly understand the legal points here - self defence and the Second Amendment are two different things. One is a defence used in court on a charge of murder, assault etc; the other is a federal prohibition on government regulation that restricts access to arms.

And you just finished illustrating that by pointing out that even a kitchen knife can be used in self defence despite not being covered under the Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Any regulatory impediment is a form of control subject to constitutional scrutiny for any textual civil liberty. Hell, the infamous "penumbral" right is treated with even more kid gloves in that regard.

BTW, it is binding precedent in all federal courts and settled law that the right of self-defense is implicated in the 2nd Amendment. Just more of you pretending Heller didn't happen.

How could I pretend Heller didn't happen when I frequently criticise it on this very forum?

[Stormdash]

You scolding anyone on missing legal nuance is truly precious. Self-defense is a right enshrined in both common law as well as statute, and in both civil and criminal matters. It has its fingers in a lot of pies. How it comes up in the 2nd Amendment context, and why you seem to be ignoring Heller, is that that case was about a citizen wanting to lawfully own a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The case affirms not only the fairly self-evident premise that gun ownership is an individual liberty interest, but that utility for self-defense is one of the proper reasons that it is.

[Ghostpanther]

That... you consider your pissweak background checks "gun control"?

You're free to engage in that farce if you like.

- - - Updated - - -



You're getting very confused because you don't properly understand the legal points here - self defence and the Second Amendment are two different things. One is a defence used in court on a charge of murder, assault etc; the other is a federal prohibition on government regulation that restricts access to arms.

And you just finished illustrating that by pointing out that even a kitchen knife can be used in self defence despite not being covered under the Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -



How could I pretend Heller didn't happen when I frequently criticise it on this very forum?

In your opinion. Which for us here in the US, has no impact at all.

Na. I am not confused. I understand the Constitutional rights we have here and there is a universal understanding that every human being has the right to defend themselves. I mentioned the kitchen knife because it would be something most would have in their home and if they do not want to have a firearm, it could be a weapon they could use. It is really not hard to understand the scenario. lol!

Tough shit. It is still the legal interpretation of our rights under the Second Amendment. And has a bearing on how we can exercise that right.

- - - Updated - - -

You scolding anyone on missing legal nuance is truly precious. Self-defense is a right enshrined in both common law as well as statute, and in both civil and criminal matters. It has its fingers in a lot of pies. How it comes up in the 2nd Amendment context, and why you seem to be ignoring Heller, is that that case was about a citizen wanting to lawfully own a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The case affirms not only the fairly self-evident premise that gun ownership is an individual liberty interest, but that utility for self-defense is one of the proper reasons that it is.

Well said. I am thinking at this point, he simply wants to be argumentative.

[TITAN308]

Well said. I am thinking at this point, he simply wants to be argumentative.

You are just now figuring this out? I warned you a couple of pages ago (I think) he is the type of person to call you racist when you simply point out crime/gun information directly from the Department of Justice.

If its not putting fingers in the ears, then its the good old fall back of, "Yea, well.... your racist!"

[Mormolyce]

In your opinion. Which for us here in the US, has no impact at all.

Na. I am not confused. I understand the Constitutional rights we have here and there is a universal understanding that every human being has the right to defend themselves. I mentioned the kitchen knife because it would be something most would have in their home and if they do not want to have a firearm, it could be a weapon they could use. It is really not hard to understand the scenario. lol!

Tough shit. It is still the legal interpretation of our rights under the Second Amendment. And has a bearing on how we can exercise that right.

So after wasting how many posts now? You concede that it is in fact a legal right, rather than a natural right, so this whole discussion was a waste of time and your objection to my original comment is bunk.

- - - Updated - - -

You scolding anyone on missing legal nuance is truly precious. Self-defense is a right enshrined in both common law as well as statute, and in both civil and criminal matters. It has its fingers in a lot of pies. How it comes up in the 2nd Amendment context, and why you seem to be ignoring Heller, is that that case was about a citizen wanting to lawfully own a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The case affirms not only the fairly self-evident premise that gun ownership is an individual liberty interest, but that utility for self-defense is one of the proper reasons that it is.

I'm going to have to once again scold you for missing legal nuance then, because the topic of discussion is whether the Second Amendment constitutes a natural right rather than a legal one, to which self defence is entirely irrelevant.

[Ghostpanther]

You are just now figuring this out? I warned you a couple of pages ago (I think) he is the type of person to call you racist when you simply point out crime/gun information directly from the Department of Justice.

If its not putting fingers in the ears, then its the good old fall back of, "Yea, well.... your racist!"

He has added nothing new to his same old line of arguments on gun control. He may feel the same about me. lol! It may have reached a point of just ignore him and move on. We shall see.

- - - Updated - - -

So after wasting how many posts now? You concede that it is in fact a legal right, rather than a natural right, so this whole discussion was a waste of time and your objection to my original comment is bunk.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm going to have to once again scold you for missing legal nuance then, because the topic of discussion is whether the Second Amendment constitutes a natural right rather than a legal one, to which self defence is entirely irrelevant.

Listen, last time I am going to post this ( for you ), the Second Amendment to keep and bare arms for self defense, is a Constitutional right. Which is a legal right. The right to defend yourself is pretty much accepted around the world in almost all countries to be a natural human right. Name anyplace where someone who is not breaking his/her local law would be charged with a crime if they defended themselves if they are attacked? Maybe in North Korea or some shithole dictatorship ruled country. :P

Both are tied together in our case here in the US.

[Tijuana]

Post #47943

Hi guys just checking in to remind the radical left that the 2nd amendment is still a thing, and you can never ever change it. Carry on.

[Tasttey]

So after wasting how many posts now? You concede that it is in fact a legal right, rather than a natural right, so this whole discussion was a waste of time and your objection to my original comment is bunk.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to have to once again scold you for missing legal nuance then, because the topic of discussion is whether the Second Amendment constitutes a natural right rather than a legal one, to which self defence is entirely irrelevant.

And someone should scold you for trolling, because you're either lying or purposefully arguing out of both sides of your mouth for the sheer purpose of eliciting a response in order to make yourself feel more important.

Let's see you joined this discussion with a joke in poor taste:

You really need a gun right now? Surely you can wait for the next country music festival.

Proceeded to claim:

Will have to stop you on point 1.

Also the presumption that gun ownership is a right.

So essentially you begged the entire question.

When informed that within the US it is a right, you then patronizingly responded with:

Silly rabbit, confusing natural and legal rights again.

Which is odd when in your own words:

I personally do not believe in natural rights, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy in Knadra's argument.

Logically if you do not believe in natural rights then the only rights you actually concede to are legal rights, which makes your entire argument a moot point.

Extrapolating on that if you don't believe in natural rights, then you don't believe in the right to life, which is the crux of this entire debate anyways, the value of one persons right to life (and the defense of said right) versus others' rights to life. Since you don't believe in a right to life, then you don't have a dog in this race.

That or you're trolling. So which is it? Are you lying or purposefully trolling?

[lockedout]

That... you consider your pissweak background checks "gun control"?

You're free to engage in that farce if you like.

It's gun control by definition, whether you think it's weak or not is meaningless.

[Mormolyce]

When informed that within the US it is a right, you then patronizingly responded with:



Which is odd when in your own words:



Logically if you do not believe in natural rights then the only rights you actually concede to are legal rights, which makes your entire argument a moot point.

Extrapolating on that if you don't believe in natural rights, then you don't believe in the right to life, which is the crux of this entire debate anyways, the value of one persons right to life (and the defense of said right) versus others' rights to life. Since you don't believe in a right to life, then you don't have a dog in this race.

That or you're trolling. So which is it? Are you lying or purposefully trolling?

You've made a simple logical oversight here: what I personally believe in is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Knadra was begging the question when he stated that gun ownership was a right.

- - - Updated - - -

Listen, last time I am going to post this ( for you ), the Second Amendment to keep and bare arms for self defense, is a Constitutional right. Which is a legal right. The right to defend yourself is pretty much accepted around the world in almost all countries to be a natural human right. Name anyplace where someone who is not breaking his/her local law would be charged with a crime if they defended themselves if they are attacked? Maybe in North Korea or some shithole dictatorship ruled country. :P

Both are tied together in our case here in the US.

Natural rights exist irrespective of local laws, that's the distinction from legal rights*. Therefore they cannot be "tied together". They are fundamentally separate things.

*(Assuming any of them exist - for Tasttey's benefit :P)

- - - Updated - - -

Hi guys just checking in to remind the radical left that the 2nd amendment is still a thing, and you can never ever change it. Carry on.

Maybe you should find a forum that has a lot of radical leftists on it. I wouldn't know where to look, personally.

But an Amendment can by definition be changed

[Tijuana]

You've made a simple logical oversight here: what I personally believe in is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Knadra was begging the question when he stated that gun ownership was a right.

- - - Updated - - -



Natural rights exist irrespective of local laws, that's the distinction from legal rights*. Therefore they cannot be "tied together". They are fundamentally separate things.

*(Assuming any of them exist - for Tasttey's benefit :P)

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe you should find a forum that has a lot of radical leftists on it. I wouldn't know where to look, personally.

But an Amendment can by definition be changed

You qualify just fine.

Yes, the amendment can be changed. And there is zero chance that will ever happen, under any circumstance, due to the fact Democrats will never control enough state legislatures. This is because they are anti rural state, and anti rural citizen. So...yeah, carry on with the discussion about a thing that will never ever change, under any circumstance.

[Mormolyce]

You qualify just fine.

If I'm your definition of a "radical leftist" then I hope you never meet an actual left winger. Your head might explode lol.

[Tijuana]

If I'm your definition of a "radical leftist" then I hope you never meet an actual left winger. Your head might explode lol.

It could be I was wrongly basing it on level of annoying. It was probably unfair to label you. I apologize.

But you are still posting in a thread about a thing that will never ever happen. Ever. It may as well be a conspiracy theory thread.

[Mormolyce]

It could be I was wrongly basing it on level of annoying. It was probably unfair to label you. I apologize.

But you are still posting in a thread about a thing that will never ever happen. Ever. It may as well be a conspiracy theory thread.

Apologising for labelling me? Now who's the leftist?

If you want to say that a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd doesn't seem likely, then sure.

[Tasttey]

You've made a simple logical oversight here: what I personally believe in is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Knadra was begging the question when he stated that gun ownership was a right.

Knadra wasn't begging the question, you're simply arguing from a false premise. The prevailing ruling concerning the 2nd Amendment is that it grants the legal right to US citizen to own firearms. Now you apparently take issue with this as you disagree with the ruling in Heller. However just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't make it untrue. You then attempted to shift the goal posts to "natural right" (which you yourself claim you don't believe in) and then patted yourself on the back because you thought you actually won an argument.

[lockedout]

But an Amendment can by definition be changed

Good luck with that.

[Stormdash]

I'm going to have to once again scold you for missing legal nuance then, because the topic of discussion is whether the Second Amendment constitutes a natural right rather than a legal one, to which self defence is entirely irrelevant.

A) natural rights and legal rights are not mutually exclusive constructs. Indeed, legalism mostly exists in pursuit of preserving natural rights in the name of basic decency.
B) Even if, arguendo, the 2nd Amendment was solely a "legal" right with no "natural" flakes on it, the fact remains that the natural right of self-defense is part of its basis, and so as well as the natural right one has to own property. I'm guessing that's another liberty that you react to like a cross before a vampire, but it's a pretty big one. It's a natural logical implication, that if you have the right to self-defense, and the right to own property, as very attributes of your human dignity, than you have the right to own property that enables you to defend yourself.

[Mormolyce]

A) natural rights and legal rights are not mutually exclusive constructs. Indeed, legalism mostly exists in pursuit of preserving natural rights in the name of basic decency.

No shit? I didn't say they were and that statement is not relevant to the discussion.

B) Even if, arguendo, the 2nd Amendment was solely a "legal" right with no "natural" flakes on it, the fact remains that the natural right of self-defense is part of its basis, and so as well as the natural right one has to own property. I'm guessing that's another liberty that you react to like a cross before a vampire, but it's a pretty big one. It's a natural logical implication, that if you have the right to self-defense, and the right to own property, as very attributes of your human dignity, than you have the right to own property that enables you to defend yourself.

Even if I accept that (which I don't) it doesn't make the 2nd Amendment a natural right.

And no I do not react to any "rights" like a vampire to a stake, because as previously stated I don't believe in them period. So I really react to them like a stake to a vampire.

On the topic of right to own property, if you believe in that then don't you think it's a little odd that guns are literally the only property that you have a Constitutional right to own? Shit, as we already discussed the courts recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment covers switchblades but not fixed blade knives, so you are in now the hilarious situation where your government has no ability to regulate switchblades but can regulate kitchen knives. Not to mention countless other inanimate objects.

Or you know, drugs for another pointed example.

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck with that.

Why would I need luck? I don't live in some shitty country with no meaningful gun control. And - total coincidence - quadruple the homicide rate of its peers and a huge problem with mass shootings.

Good luck to you.

- - - Updated - - -

Knadra wasn't begging the question, you're simply arguing from a false premise. The prevailing ruling concerning the 2nd Amendment is that it grants the legal right to US citizen to own firearms. Now you apparently take issue with this as you disagree with the ruling in Heller. However just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't make it untrue. You then attempted to shift the goal posts to "natural right" (which you yourself claim you don't believe in) and then patted yourself on the back because you thought you actually won an argument.

Knadra was not making the argument that gun control violates a LEGAL right. That's tautological.

Just think about it for five seconds.

[cubby]

"If it's against the law to own them, probably lots of people. Buy back programs have worked in this country and others. You are, like Dextro, looking for absolutes. No national policy of this magnitude will have any absolutes. Well, except for that one, lol."

Please tell me where in this quote it says SOME guns, I'll wait.

Um, it doesn't. Are you having trouble reading what you type? I said it in other places, on that same page. Some guns will remain legal, just like in other countries.