The gun debate in my opinion boils down to

No, it is about freedom. My son says too many people don’t want responsibility. I see that too.

Freedom? You don’t even know what the word means, bnw. You don’t know what the word “liberty” means, either, or “responsibility.” And you don’t have the slightest clue what the 2nd amendment means. You’re too convinced of your superiority as a “freedom” fighter to see the truth. In reality, guns have nothing to do with “freedom,” other that their endlessly repeated use in killing it. And the “freedom” or “liberty” to use them as you please steals freedom and liberty from others. There are always consequences for the use of deadly pieces of metal and you refuse to admit to them.

Talk about “responsibility.” You’d rather hide from the consequences of your love of guns.

Anyway, I tried. I can see it’s utterly hopeless to discuss this issue with you any longer.

You are essentially wanting to take away something which is permitted.

“Something permitted by law” is not human existential freedom in every single instance. In fact that’s a classic case of logical equivocation—the fallacy where a word is misleadingingly used with more than one meaning or sense. Like Abbi Hoffman’s defense of shoplifting (which is ironic so it’s a joke about equivocation): “my daddy told me america is free, and `free’ means you don’t have to pay.”

We were once permitted to drive over 65 on the freeway. Now, rarely. My “freedom” was not altered by that. Not in any other realm of my existence. I still do what I want, I can still be who I want, I can still vote, I can still say what’s on my mind.

So being permitted by law to own something or to have its ownership regulated is quite simply not the same as “human freedom” in general.

Besides, in the case of assault weapons, it was banned before it was permitted. They let the law expire.

So yeah…you will keep saying it IS about freedom, and I will look at every single argument you make about that and just say “sorry I don’t believe that.” You are only speaking for a belief, and that belief is quite simply not a truth. And more importantly, not everyone shares that belief.

…

Besides, in the case of assault weapons, it was banned before it was permitted. They let the law expire.

Yep. Banned before it was permitted. And before that, the technology didn’t even exist. And the amendment itself has never “permitted” unlimited consumer choice of weaponry. If we really want to read it as it was written and intended, it never “permitted” weaponry outside the context of state militias. That was already permitted long before the 2nd amendment came into effect . . . and it would exist in its absence.

There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights granting the kind of right bnw thinks he has. It doesn’t exist. It’s never existed.

This was among Madison’s earlier revisions, nearly adopted. It makes it even clearer that this was aimed at a military context:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

You can’t wiggle away from that fact. When you want to change something that I can do now legally to make it illegal you are denying me the freedom I had before. Because it is freedom we’re talking about when you use the force of law to punish.

So, according to you, when we imposed regulations on things like asbestos and lead, and construction companies could no longer use them in buildings, this was “punishment” and took away “freedom” from those companies? Is that your take? Any new laws or regulations designed to improve the health and safety of Americans, if they mean a little inconvenience for you, and cause you to try something new, that’s “punishment” and a denial of your “freedom”?

Again, no one is suggesting that you can’t own a gun, or use it to defend yourself, or take it hunting, or use it for target practice. Gun control advocates are saying we should have universal background checks, maybe a waiting period, and some suggest a ban on certain high-capacity weaponry. Maybe licensing and registration, like we do with cars. How is that “punishing” you?

Again, you still get to own guns, use them, play with them, etc. etc. You just have to abide by a few new common sense regulations. Why is that a problem for you?

Billy_T wrote:

I respect “freedom” greatly. But I don’t respect people who radically twist and distort what it means in order to pursue an agenda that greatly benefits the gun industry. I don’t respect people who radically twist and distort what it means in order to pit Americans against each other, with the very real possibility of violent opposition in the mix. I don’t respect people who radically twist and distort what it means in order to win votes and increase their political power.

I don’t think bnw’s twisting and distorting, which is an intentional effort to cloud the discussion.

I think he believes what he’s saying.

Now I don’t believe what he’s saying for a minute and in fact think it’s a huge misconception.

But that’s not the same as intentional distortion.

You can’t wiggle away from that fact. When you want to change something that I can do now legally to make it illegal you are denying me the freedom I had before.

No.

You are limited when it comes to doing THAT anymore (though actually this one was banned before it was permitted.)

That does not mean your freedom IN GENERAL has been curtailed.

So the fact that they lowered speed limits nationally does not mean you leave in a dystopian slave state. And this is from someone who grew up in the country and used to drive more than a 100 on empty freeways at night while hanging out.

We dis-permit things all the time. Marijuana used to not be illegal. Now it is tenuously partly legal. Laws change on specific things without altering general freedom. Same with speed limits. I once drove cross state at 110 mph. Now I can’t.

One is not the other. Permitted to buy item X is not “freedom” writ large. (Unless it
s books I guess.) As I said equating the 2 is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

You can’t wiggle away from that fact. When you want to change something that I can do now legally to make it illegal you are denying me the freedom I had before.

No.

You are limited when it comes to doing THAT anymore (though actually this one was banned before it was permitted.)

That does not mean your freedom IN GENERAL has been curtailed.

So the fact that they lowered speed limits nationally does not mean you leave in a dystopian slave state. And this is from someone who grew up in the country and used to drive more than a 100 on empty freeways at night while hanging out.

We dis-permit things all the time. Marijuana used to not be illegal. Now it is tenuously partly legal. Laws change on specific things without altering general freedom. Same with speed limits. I once drove cross state at 110 mph. Now I can’t.

One is not the other. Permitted to buy item X is not “freedom” writ large. (Unless it
s books I guess.) As I said equating the 2 is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Not equivocation. Not at all. You do not have the right to a drivers license. That is conferred by the state. You do have your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm. Big difference.

And you do not have the right to assault weapons. Certain interpretations of militia amendment have construed it that way, but that’s not universal.

Plus we make reasonable laws all the time restricting rights anyway. Freedom of speech is not absolute, for example.

And either way, just differing on whether or not the militia amendment grants private citizens the right to unregulated ownership of assault weapons is not a discussion of “freedom.” It’s a discussion of one particular type of action. “Freedom to buy guns without limit or restriction” is not the same as “freedom in general.”

You get much closer to limiting “freedom in general” when you restrict someone’s right to vote, which is directly and unambiguously guaranteed by the constitution…yet politicians all over the country try to limit that on a regular basis. Having a right to vote is fundamental to being a citizen of this democracy. Private citizens having big collections of fully usable military weapons is not fundamental to being a citizen, it’s just a “thing” some people have, like smoking dope is for others.

bnw wrote:

The militias at that time were an organic local response to a threat to the community.

Look up the history and avoid the nutcase propaganda that’s out there on that. Militias were organized by states and under the legal jurisdiction of state governors. Again that is what “well regulated” means and refers to.

Just for convenience here is the wiki on that:

The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,” as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: “To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” The Militia Act of 1792[17] clarified whom the militia consists of; “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.”

martin luther king defended our “freedoms” without lifting a single finger.

and honestly freedom is something we all have regardless of whatever restrictions society puts on our rights as a civilian.

that’s the freedom i’m more concerned about if that makes any sense.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by InvaderRam.