Gun rights victory today!

[Magic Man]

The "sort of" is rather telling, don't you think?

No, because I would apply the "sort of" to the other phrase in question.

OK, I see your point now. I still think it's an attempt to stack the deck, which I reject.

It's not an attempt to stack the deck. The idea is to determine net harm done. The amount of people who own guns and are never involved in violence might be helpful in the debate about guns, but it's not relevant to this particular point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

because certain restrictions on my liberty are in place.

[youtube]abfkx7cYx9c[/youtube]
YouTube - John Travolta Staying alive

 

[Magic Man]

OK, I held off for as long as I could. I find it rather telling that in an hour and three pages worth of posts, no one has seen fit to even acknowledge this point.

I must have missed that point. It's a valid one. That's why if we want to get rid of guns, we would need to do more than just criminalize them. We'd need to change the mindset. Of course, if we could accomplish changing the mindset, the option of making them illegal might be moot.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I must have missed that point. It's a valid one. That's why if we want to get rid of guns, we would need to do more than just criminalize them. We'd need to change the mindset. Of course, if we could accomplish changing the mindset, the option of making them illegal might be moot.

We could force everyone to watch Keystone cops.

No guns, no glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp5ASmgR1L0

 

[Magic Man]

If I lived in the UK, I wouldn't be dissing the US as being in a state of "perpetual national failure".
We all have our problems, but the gun rights issue is a Constitutional one. In this case, it was
a victory not just for gun rights, but also having the USSC rule according to the law of the land,
rather than personal values. Even if you oppose gun rights, doesn't it make sense that the
justices rule based upon Constitutional law, rather than whim & fiat?

I think this is a crucial point. In case it's not clear, I'm not necessarily advocating banning guns. I'm just not all about them. However, regardless of whether or not I want them banned, the Constitution does give us the right to own them. If someone really wants to ban them, the way to go is not to ignore the Constitution, but to change it. Unless that is changed, this ruling is the only correct one.

 

[McBell]

lol and beer doesn't cause people to be drunk

Actually, beer doesn't do anything at all.
Just like any other inanimate object, like, you know, a gun...

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of people is rather asinine, don't you think?

 

[Storm]

First, yes, it's inarguable that the Constitution allows for citizens to own guns. In this case, it wouldn't be a matter of questioning whether or not it says that, but whether that's the best idea in modern times.

Yes, that's the question.

Second, I'm not sure how this responds to my comment.

I was pointing out a strawman.

Third, it boils down to the fact that you want to have one and you don't want people telling you what you can and can't do.

No, it really doesn't. It boils down to whether we should defer to liberty, or be forced to justify it.

Also, many other points have been raised aside from that central one. Why do you ignore them?

That's fine, but in society that's not all there is to it. I want to be able to drive as fast as I can. I'm not allowed to, though, because certain restrictions on my liberty are in place.

How many times do I have to say that not all restrictions are bad? Do I need to resort to huge fonts and bright colors?

I don't understand how this responds to that comment. Your stick seems to do fine, which negates the need for a gun, it would appear.

That's my decision, not yours.

I meant for either one. I figure no one's refuting because there hasn't been any evidence for it yet.

"Either one?" What's the other?

Except that driving has something other than destruction as a goal. The entire purpose of guns is to destroy things. The purpose of a car is to transport people quickly, while the damage that happens because of them is a side effect. The damage caused by guns isn't a side effect; it's the purpose of the gun.

Is target shooting "destruction?" Is feeding one's family? Defending livestock? Killing a rattlesnake poised to strike? I suppose they are technically, but after your objections to "restriction of liberty," this statement is rather ironic.

And then there are those who simply collect for love of the craft and the history. Nothing destructive there.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If I lived in the UK, I wouldn't be dissing the US as being in a state of "perpetual national failure".
We all have our problems, but the gun rights issue is a Constitutional one. In this case, it was
a victory not just for gun rights, but also having the USSC rule according to the law of the land,
rather than personal values. Even if you oppose gun rights, doesn't it make sense that the
justices rule based upon Constitutional law, rather than whim & fiat?

We have nothing so fixed as a written constitution.
I would suggest a constitution can be a wrong as any other document.

I am happy for a law court to up hold a law or overturn it, according to to the rights of the issue.

 

[Storm]

I must have missed that point. It's a valid one.

Fair enough, and thank you.

That's why if we want to get rid of guns, we would need to do more than just criminalize them. We'd need to change the mindset.

This was the entire thrust of point 1 from the same post.

American violence is not caused by guns. It's caused by glorification of violence and crime, poverty, instituional racism, lack of education, and draconian policies like the War On Drugs. That's just off the top of my head.

I'm all for working to cure these ills. I'm just as strongly opposed to trying to band-aid it with unconstitutional prohibitions.

Of course, if we could accomplish changing the mindset, the option of making them illegal might be moot.

And I'd be fine with that. Work on the real problems, leave liberty alone.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

With freedom comes responsiblity, but also risk. That's part of the trade-off. The constitution guarantees certain rights, but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering. Thankfully so, as the type of social mindset resulting from such a scheme would be a very depressing place to live.

 

[Storm]

I think this is a crucial point. In case it's not clear, I'm not necessarily advocating banning guns. I'm just not all about them. However, regardless of whether or not I want them banned, the Constitution does give us the right to own them. If someone really wants to ban them, the way to go is not to ignore the Constitution, but to change it. Unless that is changed, this ruling is the only correct one.

OK, fair enough. You seemed to be advocating a ban, so thank you for clarifying. I'll stop burning strawmen.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have nothing so fixed as a written constitution.
I would suggest a constitution can be a wrong as any other document.

I am happy for a law court to up hold a law or overturn it, according to to the rights of the issue.

Our Constitution isn't written? Barsh! Flimshaw! I'll leave that one alone.
As for it being "wrong', we can amend it by prescribed legal means if we see fit.
But it is not for the justices to decide it's wrong & alter it by fiat to suit their personal agendas.
I would not want them to be given such a power that would exceed the other branches.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Our Constitution isn't written? Barsh! Flimshaw! I'll leave that one alone.
As for it being "wrong', it can be amended if we see fit. But it is not for the justices
to decide it's wrong & alter it by fiat to suit their personal agendas.

We don't have political judges either.

 

[Magic Man]

I was pointing out a strawman.

But there was no strawman in my comment.

No, it really doesn't. It boils down to whether we should defer to liberty, or be forced to justify it.

I was talking about your comment specifically.

Also, many other points have been raised aside from that central one. Why do you ignore them?

If I'm ignoring something, it's because it's irrelevant to my argument. As I've said, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned. I just think there's a lot more to it than "I want them, and you can't tell me I can't have them because it only makes me want them more".

How many times do I have to say that not all restrictions are bad? Do I need to resort to huge fonts and bright colors?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand how that responds to what I'm saying. Just like people can't drive any speed they want for public safety reasons, maybe people shouldn't own guns for public safety reasons.

That's my decision, not yours.

Well, this was kind of my point earlier with the "I want them and you can't tell me I can't have them" mindset. I don't think that's a strong argument here.

"Either one?" What's the other?

Rick mentioned something about Australia. You mentioned the UK.

Is target shooting "destruction?"

Yes.

Is feeding one's family?

Yes, assuming you're talking about killing something to feed your family, especially since there are ways to do that without guns.

Defending livestock?

Yes.

Killing a rattlesnake poised to strike?

Yes, you said it yourself, "killing".

I suppose they are technically, but after your objections to "restriction of liberty," this statement is rather ironic.

I don't see how. There might be some good reasons for the destruction, but it's still destruction. It's the entire goal of the object.

And then there are those who simply collect for love of the craft and the history. Nothing destructive there.

But the goal of the object is destruction. I doubt anyone would have a problem with someone who just had a collection of guns that didn't actually work and couldn't fire off a round.

 

[Magic Man]

With freedom comes responsiblity, but also risk. That's part of the trade-off. The constitution guarantees certain rights, but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering. Thankfully so, as the type of social mindset resulting from such a scheme would be a very depressing place to live.

That's one way to phrase it. Not a very good one, but it's certainly one way.

 

[Storm]

Our Constitution isn't written? Barsh! Flimshaw! I'll leave that one alone.

Terry is in the UK. His "we" does not include us.

As for it being "wrong', we can amend it by prescribed legal means if we see fit.
But it is not for the justices to decide it's wrong & alter it by fiat to suit their personal agendas.
I would not want them to be given such a power that would exceed the other branches.

Agreed.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, fair enough. You seemed to be advocating a ban, so thank you for clarifying. I'll stop burning strawmen.

I haven't seen you burn any strawmen.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's one way to phrase it. Not a very good one, but it's certainly one way.

I just think there's a lot more to it than "I think they should be banned, and you can't tell me they shouldn't be banned because it only makes me want to ban them more".

 

[Magic Man]

I just think there's a lot more to it than "I think they should be banned, and you can't tell me they shouldn't be banned because it only makes me want to ban them more".

I thought it was just your phrasing that was off, but apparently it's also your understanding of the issue. I'd expect an intelligent guy like you to be able to understand this better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Terry is in the UK. His "we" does not include us. .

Now it makes more sense. Thanx! I gotta go more by profiles & less by context.