Forum Replies Created
-
This.
This is why I don’t allow argument papers on this topic.
It isn’t an actual argument that respects the rules of logic and rational argumentation as laid out by Aristotle. It is a religious argument with underlying realities that do not correspond. It isn’t an “argument.” It is a declaration of religious allegiance.
True, Zooey. And “religious allegiance” is an excellent way to put it, as is “not following the rules of logic and rational argumentation.”
For instance, bnw previously asserted that Americans are not legally constrained regarding the kinds of weapons they can buy. I asked him to prove this. He responds by showing a picture of some completely random and unspecified re-enactment. This, of course, tells us absolutely nothing about the legal constraints involved, who bought what and how, what kinds of local, state and federal laws come into play, etc. etc. It tells us nothing about all the limitations imposed on those weapons, the buyers, the time and place limits and so on. Where they are stored once the re-enactment is over (or prior to it), and so on.
It’s not “proof” of his assertion in the slightest. At best, it’s “proof” that re-enactments occur, which wasn’t the topic under discussion. Not by light years. And even there, it’s weak. The picture doesn’t tell us if the re-enactment is even legal.
It’s classic desperation. Moving those old goalposts again and again. Flailing away, and a true sign of being utterly out of one’s depths.
I’ve already wasted waaaay too much time arguing with bnw. Time to do other things.
bnw,
Don’t just repeat your assertions. Prove them. Show legal proof that Americans can legally purchase, possess and use machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, high explosives and so on. Prove it.
Repeating your claims isn’t proof.
And citing “re-enactments” is beyond silly. To the extent those are ever possible, they are highly regulated, require umpteen licenses and special permits. The weaponry must be in the form of “duds” and basically unusable. And those re-enactments can only be held in specific places, for a specific purpose and specifically limited time, as per those licenses and permits. Once that time allotment is over, they are no longer allowed.
You’re not making your case for the supposed lack of regulations through time.
At issue is the 2nd Amendment and the intent when written. Your mentioning militia anything after that is not germane.
The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. It was written nearly a decade after America defeated the Brits. The Constitution had been ratified two years before this, signaling the defeat of the anti-federalists. Madison didn’t even want the addition of the BOR, seeing the Constitution as sufficient. But he and other federalists were willing to compromise a bit with the losing side. That was very generous of them.
The context of that amendment meant it was not designed as a way to raise troops to fight a foreign power in control of America. That scenario no longer existed. And control of the militias was now federalized, as per the Constitution. That foreign power was vanquished. It was written in the context of an established state, a new state, and it set things up to secure that state, including the 2nd.
Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Back to the amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
obviously refers to the protection of the state itself, not to the enabling of its overthrow.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
refers to securing that state. “Bear arms” was understood at that time, and for well over a century afterward, to mean a military context only. It had nothing whatsoever to do with home use, or hunting. That aspect of self-defense and self-provision was established centuries before via English Common Law.
Again, there is absolutely no mention, anywhere, regarding an individual’s “right” to purchase weaponry for any use outside of a well-regulated militia, and absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of keeping up with weapons technology. Not in Madison’s notes. Not in the text itself. Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.
Do you think I pull this stuff out of my ass about civilians having the right to own:
machine guns, mortars, artillery, antiaircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, and HE (high explosive) rounds for same? With the aforementioned being LEGAL your bitching about an AR-15 WHICH HAS BEEN LEGAL TO OWN SINCE 1963 is ridiculous.
Yes. That’s exactly what you’ve done.
Oh, and about MLK and guns:
Martin Luther King Jr.’s Complicated Legacy On Gun Violence
“If you went to King’s house in 1955 or 1956, there were guns,” Cobb said in an interview. “When they bombed his house in 1956, his first instinct was to apply for a gun permit. He moves toward nonviolence slowly. By the 1960s, he abandoned the idea of weapons for self-defense.”
and
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a King aide who was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, when King was shot and killed, said King was mindful of the role of guns.
“Dr. King’s point was that the protection of one’s home is self-evident, but he was quick to add that you’re more likely to shoot a relative or commit suicide (with a gun),” Jackson said. “He refused to keep a gun in his house for that reason.”
After his home was bombed, King got rid of his gun and eschewed weapons, said King lieutenant Andrew Young. Before joining King, Young owned a shotgun and a handgun. The movement did not condemn defensive violence, Young explained; King simply did not engage in it.
“He decided he was not going to have a gun, and he didn’t want anybody with guns around him,” Young said.
Really? Or is this the “nutcase propaganda” another poster here accuses supporters of the 2nd Amendment right?
Because the TRUTH is MLK owned guns. MLK also had armed guards at his house. MLK also applied for a conceal carry permit. MLK did embrace his 2nd Amendment right.
bnw,
Actually, judging from your posts, you don’t support the 2nd amendment as written or conceived. You don’t support it as it’s been understood by our judicial system or the vast majority of historians and scholars for the last two centuries, until Heller. You support a radicalized and quite recent reinterpretation of that amendment.
MLK never supported that revision. He was killed by a gun before it moved beyond the far-right fringe. He was killed by a gun before the NRA supported that reinterpretation, because it was taken over by far-right zealots in 1977.
Play? Far from it. Tell that to the victims of crime who are determined to protect themselves.
Guns rarely do protect anyone from any crimes. They are far more likely to be turned on the owner and result in the owner’s death. Guns in the home, guns in the street, radically increase the likelihood that the owner or someone in their family dies. Especially women. Dozens of toddlers, for instance, have killed their siblings already this year. This is common. Homicides, accidents and suicides all skyrocket in likelihood when you have a gun in your home or carry it on the street.
And, again, this isn’t about the 2nd amendment. It’s not at all accurate when you try to make the debate about its support. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. It’s never given any American an unfettered right to unlimited, unrestricted consumer choice in the first place. No such right has ever existed anywhere in the world, including here. And that’s even if we completely ignore the fundamentally essential aspect of state militias — as written.
The only way the 2nd amendment could legitimately play a part would be if some entity decided to ban all arms, with no exceptions. That would go against the amendment. But restricting the type of weapon, capping firepower and capacity, quantity, requiring licensing and registration, training, waiting periods, background checks, smart gun tech and so on — none of that goes against the amendment in any way, shape or form.
The amendment has never protected you from added inconvenience or more hoops to jump through before purchase. Nor has it ever given you a right to consumer choice, especially not unlimited consumer choice. As long as you can “keep and bear” an arm, we’ve conformed with the 2nd amendment. And, again, that means ceding away its essential context, the state militias, where the “bear arms” term has always meant in a military setting, only.
Why should I or any other law abiding gun owner be further impacted? Go after the criminals not the law abiding gun owners. Law abiding. Look it up.
Almost without exception, mass shooters were “law abiding” before they snapped and slaughtered dozens. The vast majority of domestic shootings are committed by people who were “law abiding” before they snapped and killed their wife, or friends, or neighbors and so on.
The vast majority of gun violence in America is committed by people with no priors. And the easy access to guns enables this. The easy access to high-capacity weaponry weaponizes the person who snaps to kill dozens.
The guns themselves, being so prevalent, are a menace to all of us and take “freedom and liberty” away from us on a daily basis. Guns are the weapon of choice for rapists, kidnappers, thieves, terrorists, mass shooters, etc. High-capacity guns are the weapons of choice for mass shooters and terrorists.
Logic tells us we should make it radically tougher to obtain those weapons of mass destruction, and the best way to start is by banning them. Ban the manufacture, sale, import, export, trade and possession of those high-capacity guns. No citizen needs them. And no amendment protects the purchase or ownership of them.
It’s time to put the health and safety of the American people above the desire of a tiny minority that endangers all of us. It’s time to put human life first and foremost, radically ahead of the desire of that tiny minority to play with deadly pieces of metal.
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.
No it is you who doesn’t respect freedom. I want to protect our BOR.
As the young kids used to say, OMG!!
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.
And for the billionth time, no one here is trying to attack the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t need your “protection” in the slightest, and you’re delusional if you think you have to. Gun control is well within the parameters of the Bill of Rights, and nothing I have suggested in any way goes against the BOR. Not remotely. Not one iota.
Now, if you refuse to accept that, that’s your problem. Not mine. You don’t defend the Bill of Rights by stubbornly clinging to a radically wrong interpretation of it, and those of us who seek sensible gun control aren’t giving you any reason to think you need to “protect” it.
And, please. Stop with the nonsense about “fearing freedom.” You and I disagree on the meaning of the word. Logic would dictate that you, realizing that, would stop trying to paint this as a battle between those who defend it and those who seek to take it away.
We don’t agree what “it” means.
In short, I am at LEAST as much in favor of freedom as you are, and as the recent political test showed, I am far more anti-authoritarian than you are. It’s not at all close. It’s never close between actual leftists and right-libertarians or conservatives. We consistently score higher on anti-authoritarian grounds than right-wingers.
So I’ll try one more time. Will you admit that this is not about your supposed defense of “freedom” and our supposed attempt to take it away? We don’t agree that “freedom” is even involved when it comes to guns, and we don’t agree about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. We’re in two separate universes on that score, and when it comes to the meaning of “freedom” and “liberty,” etc.
(To make it a little easier, I separated the two parts of the post)
This is your original thesis:
Those that support the 2nd Amendment want freedom. Those that don’t support the 2nd Amendment want perceived safety. I see no middle ground.
Will you admit to the following, that this is our position?
1. We don’t see the 2nd amendment as meaning the same thing as you say it means. In fact, we’re light years away from each other on that.
2. We don’t associate support for the 2nd amendment as having anything to do with “freedom.” We don’t see “freedom” in the ownership, use or proliferation of guns. We don’t define “freedom” the way you do.
3. We don’t necessarily oppose the 2nd amendment. We just oppose your interpretation of that amendment. We see it as in error. Profoundly in error. We have a profound disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means.
4. Given that we don’t agree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or how “freedom” comes into play here, or the way “freedom” is defined . . . it makes no sense for you to set this up the way you do, as some kind of battle between the forces of “freedom” and those opposed to it.
Can we at least agree about that?
bnw,
I provided several links that show the origins and history of the 2nd amendment, and how the right, led by the NRA, has radically reinvented that history out of whole cloth to suit its agenda. The history of guns in America is not the history as the right presents it. Nor was the 2nd amendment ever, ever meant to bestow citizens with an individual “right” to own guns outside of state militia contexts. We could do that prior to the 2nd amendment, and would be able to now without it. English common law established the right to self-defense, centuries ago, and the Brits did not change that in the colonies.
The 2nd amendment was solely to support the continuation of state militias, and the right it bestows only exists within that context. Within a context of something that no longer exists. It’s as if we were given a right to cook dodo birds, and they went extinct. That renders the right itself obsolete.
But we’ll never agree on the above, and I get that. We could go back and forth forever on the subject, and we’d get nowhere. So, I ask you to at least consider the following, so we can establish some common ground:
This is your original thesis:
Those that support the 2nd Amendment want freedom. Those that don’t support the 2nd Amendment want perceived safety. I see no middle ground.
Will you admit to the following, that this is our position?
1. We don’t see the 2nd amendment as meaning the same thing as you say it means. In fact, we’re light years away from each other on that.
2. We don’t associate support for the 2nd amendment as having anything to do with “freedom.” We don’t see “freedom” in the ownership, use or proliferation of guns. We don’t define “freedom” the way you do.
3. We don’t necessarily oppose the 2nd amendment. We just oppose your interpretation of that amendment. We see it as in error. Profoundly in error. We have a profound disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means.
4. Given that we don’t agree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or how “freedom” comes into play here, or the way “freedom” is defined . . . it makes no sense for you to set this up the way you do, as some kind of battle between the forces of “freedom” and those opposed to it.
Can we at least agree about that?
ZN,
That’s well said. I see it as “alien” too. Though I’d use stronger words. “Alien” is far too nice, IMO.
But, yeah, it’s definitely become “common” to see it posed as a “freedom versus tyranny” debate. Common, but still incredibly “alien.” Perhaps “irrational” is the better word?
Like, it’s incredibly “irrational” to push for massive spending cuts in the midst of a recession or weak recovery, but it is now the mainstream view in DC, even among establishment Dems — thanks primarily to the Tea Party and the folks who pull its strings. For forty plus years, at least, this was considered economic suicide by the vast majority of economists. But, today? It’s a part of the woodwork to believe this.
The ravings of Ayn Rand were once considered so irrational, so demented and hate-filled, they were basically laughed at and dismissed out of hand. Now, they, too, have gained a certain cache in the mainstream. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s, I never saw that coming, etc. etc.
