Why the difference? — Michael

Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. In other words, the right to self-defense entails the right to the appropriate means of self-defense, but such weapons are clearly inappropriate. One doesn't need a tank to protect one's ranch from coyotes or a grenade launcher to protect one during the commute home along a dangerous road. However, a rifle and a pistol might be prudent to have respectively in such cases. And there are hundreds of thousands of cases each year where people have saved their own lives, the lives of others, and private property by the use of guns.

Yes.

So not allowing civilians to buy grenades and automatic machine guns infringed on an inalienable right? — Michael

Banning such weapons doesn't infringe on said right, correct.

I don't believe the second amendment is a right worth having if it means it increases the chance of people being killed or injured as opposed to the average risk in other developed countries that don't offer such a right. — Baden

Why do you assume that it's the second amendment that causes gun deaths? Take a look here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.085b6df2f17f

The fact that this seems even remotely unreasonable or difficult to understand for you is something I can't help you with. — Baden

I understand that you lied and are now covering your tracks.

State rights. — Michael

Ordinarily, this might be a good reason (one I doubt you sincerely hold), but it's not in this case, because the second amendment is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. It's not something that can be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right.

That's just what the lefty underground conspiracy biders-of-time would say wouldn't they, you lefty underground conspiratorial time bider. — StreetlightX

Hey @Baden, what was that about feeling persecuted?

Not wishing for something and not caring if that thing happens aren't incompatible positions to have. — Michael

A distinction without a difference. Baden both does wish for the second amendment to be repealed as well as for guns to be banned. The reason he didn't state his opposition to the second amendment earlier, he now tells us, is because it's "not going anywhere." So he's pretending to be a pragmatist.

Moreover, I can merely repeat the question I asked you in the Shoutbox: why repeal the second amendment if not because one wants to ban all guns or make them virtually impossible to own? Again, you're not really fooling anyone here. Anyone with half a brain would make that inference (which may exclude most leftists, but not all of them).

Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating. — StreetlightX

How condescending of you.

Yes, all those crazies, look at them, trying to do something - anything - about the extraordinary disproportion of gun related deaths in the US. Madness incarnate. — StreetlightX

I love it. The clear implication being: "if you don't agree with what I want done, you're not doing anything and don't want to do anything."

Leftist tactics in a nutshell: take sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. Don't dispute the points they make. No, just go straight for the ad hominem. There's really no use arguing with someone who thinks other people are evil for disagreeing about how best to solve societal problems, no matter how much the latter acknowledge the problems and want to try and solve them.

I was responding to this false statement you made: "So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around."

That's the third time quoting it. Did you know the "manner" of the regulation in question, as the founders understood that word, when you made this comment? Do you even now? I think not. When you hear the word "regulation," you think of measures like those Pelosi and the Democratic party want to enact. Stop playing dumb.

some manner of regulation — StreetlightX

Just look at you squirm here! It does refer to "some manner" of regulation, yes, but not the kind Pelosi et al want. That was precisely the point I just got done making.

Anyhow, seeing as you feel persecuted, I'll withdraw from the conversation. — Baden

God you're annoying.

You said: "So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around."

This is bizarre. The "regulated" in "a well-regulated militia" does not refer to gun control. Where did you get that idea from? Judging by the wording of your comment above, it seems you just pulled it out of your ass. The second amendment is there to establish the positive right to bear arms. It wasn't drafted to enforce regulations on firearms that make it difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to purchase, own, or carry a firearm. The regulations the Democratic party, one of whose leaders, and not just any old representative, wants to enact would greatly contribute to making it thus difficult.

I also like how it's three against one and not one of you has refuted anything I've said. Just straw men and attacks on my character. While not surprising, it is hypocritical, as you are all mods, and I have seen the mods delete posts of a similar nature. This will be an excellent thread to reference whenever you try to censor the Kevins on the forum in the future and thereby cause an uproar.

Says the dude who responded to a point about the constitution with 'they're planning to take away all our guns'. That's not the appearance of crazy, that is crazy. — StreetlightX

There was an "or" followed by another possibility that you have now conveniently ignored. I never said anyone was planning to ban guns. I said I can imagine that someone like Pelosi wishes she could. In the meantime, she would like to make guns harder to own by introducing much stricter regulations and by banning certain guns altogether. That was the clear intent of her words I quoted.

It's not hard to imagine, seeing as Baden on this very forum initially said he was opposed to banning guns only to reveal that he's not.

mean it though, I think your response is so wild as to be something that honestly needs to be a case study in human communication. — StreetlightX

No you don't. You're purposely overreacting to make me appear crazy.

Along with most of the pro-gun discourse in the US in general. To move from, 'hey look at what the constitution says' to 'Pelosi wants to ban all our guns because she mentioned something about a slippery slope'. the one just isn't a response to the other - it's just a complete non-sequitur. Plato ought to rewrite the Sophist on these terms. — StreetlightX

Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned. It's not at all difficult to imagine that someone like Pelosi privately prefers all guns to be banned, viewing the regulations she proposes as the best step in that direction. She and her colleagues have already proposed the banning of certain kinds of presently legal firearms.

To imagine that Nancy Pelosi is going to take all your guns away is Alex Jones territory and you know better. — Baden

She said: "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so."

This cannot but mean that she would like to pass a bevy of regulations that would undoubtedly make it harder to legally own a firearm, which in turn is a step closer to an outright ban. In what other direction is it a step?

Ah, Pelosi's wish for a 'slippery slope' unequivocally translating to the banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". Yes, I see how you got from A to B, it's so clear. — StreetlightX

It is. I see no alternative explanation of her words from you here.

Amazing. Honestly, people like you need to be put in a Petri dish and studied. — StreetlightX

What a lovely thing to say. It's the kind of thing I've seen the mods delete before on many an occasion. Perhaps flagrant hypocrites like you ought to be studied first.

I suppose it's the same person who said that we ought to be "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". See, I can play this stupid game of hypotheticals and intention projection too. — StreetlightX

I just cited a quote from Pelosi, the meaning of which could not be more clear. Try again.

And I have genuine concerns about the intentions of those who would prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is. So what? What a bizarre response. — StreetlightX

What you say here is bizarre. Find me the person who said, "I prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is."

And they're against a prohibition. Why "regulate" something that can only lead to ownership of illegal guns? — Benkei

I don't know. I think it should be prohibited. The point is that the NRA is not monolithically opposed to any and all gun regulations, as was suggested.

So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around. — StreetlightX

But so would banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one be unconstitutional, since the amendment presupposes gun ownership by the citizenry. "Nobody has said that" you say? Pelosi just said that she "hopes" currently proposed regulations are a "slippery slope." So I think proponents of the second amendment have a genuine concern about the intentions of those who push for greater regulations. I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. Michael in fact wants this to happen.

It isn't clear to me what the drafters of the amendment intended by "militia" but apparently it's believed by some that it's intended to refer to the citizenry at large, which would seem to me to be less than well-regulated. — Ciceronianus the White

It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment.

I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. — Ciceronianus the White

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You objected to me using the word God to describe a range of possible meanings (because I lack certainty on exactly what/who God is), but you don't object if it use it to describe a First Cause or Source of being? — MysticMonist

Correct.

Just because there is a First Cause doesn't mean it's a diety. I do agree theists hold that God is the first cause, but the terms are not synonymous. — MysticMonist

Well, yes, there is a difference between deism and theism. But deists and theists do still believe in God, they just differ about whether God has revealed itself in history, can be prayed to, has a plan for the world, etc. Deists say no, theists say yes.

At least not to redefine Him as my Absolute Source of being, meaning, and virtue — MysticMonist

Theists do actually minimally conceive of God as the absolute source of being.

Hmm... I never knew that. — MysticMonist

He's wrong.

No. You're using it in the non-standard sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

He's a figure in liberal Christianity, which is a relatively new development in the history of Christianity that really only exists in the mainline Protestant churches. In my view, it tries to retain all the language and rituals of historic Christianity, while stripping them of any real content. Everything becomes mere metaphor.

So it is a bit insulting and I can only fathom you are trying to simply get me to stop posting about the topic — schopenhauer1

Actually, in a way I am. If you keep making posts on themes that assume anti-natalism's truth, keep getting the same responses that criticize it, but then respond to these criticisms by saying that you've already addressed them before, why keep making these threads? You're involved in a Sisyphean task of your own making it seems to me.

I get that it is hard to remember what was said in the past, so I advise to may read from our last discussion if you are going to call the question of absurdity and structural suffering simply rhetorical. I don't know how it can be when rhetorical usually means it is not meant to have a definitive answer, when I in fact do provide some ideas and answers. If others don't see it the same way, then I argue my point by describing more clearly what I am talking about. It is hard to convey certain concepts like absurdity into words, but I try to paint a picture. If people still don't get it, or understand it, so be it, but I do like to hear other's opinions on the matter as it is important, as far as I see it. — schopenhauer1

I respect your views, and am in fact still very close to them. I've pivoted in a slightly different direction from you with respect to anti-natalism, but retain a commitment to philosophical pessimism broadly construed. Our last major discussion on anti-natalism, however, was never really resolved, and I still don't understand the intent behind these threads, seeing as they all turn out the same.

Tillich blatantly rejects "theism". — MysticMonist

No. He distinguishes between two different kinds of theism, rejecting one and arguing for the other. Have you read him yet?

I'm sorry you don't like Rohr, but you can't discount him out of hand. He hasn't been kicked out of the Catholic Church yet. — MysticMonist

So you do know what I mean! ;)

I forgot what we are originally arguing. The meaning of God and theism right? You win, I'll try not to use those terms. — MysticMonist

I appreciate it.

How is what I said a non-sequitur? — MountainDwarf

Because you're missing a premise (or more than one) that links God's immateriality with an inability on our part to prove his existence.

Tillich says God is ground of all being, he rejects theism — MysticMonist

No he doesn't. He rejects only a certain type of theism, in contradistinction to the one he advocates, which is remarkably akin to classical conceptions of God found in Aquinas and others.

Rohr is a via negativa mystic, who doesn't strictly define God. He talks about God as consciousness sometimes. — MysticMonist

Rohr is a New Age writer whose views on God have little to do with actual apophatic theology.

Descartes has a pretty philosophical view of God from first principles — MysticMonist

Descartes expresses standard theism.

Spinoza's God is more complex that one line to explain — MysticMonist

Spinoza disagrees: "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."

Well then, if it is obvious, tell me what proof you have. — MountainDwarf

Why do you assume that I have one? I'm not a theist at present, but I don't have to be to identify bad arguments against God's existence.

assuming we're talking about the God of the Bible. God is invisible and God is immaterial. Therefore if he exists he exists incognito. No one can prove that there is or is not a Christian God. — MountainDwarf

A non-sequitur. God being invisible or immaterial doesn't entail that he cannot be proven to exist.

What term should I use? — MysticMonist

I don't know. It's not really my problem.

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Spinoza and Plato and Descartes and Tillich and Richard Rohr all mean this wider sense of God to jystva nane a few. But I don't mean the God that the baptist church is taking about. — MysticMonist

Really? All of those figures use the particular word "God" to refer to "a range of possible realities?" I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Maybe cause it's not obvious? — MountainDwarf

Maybe. But then you'd need an argument to show that, which I don't see here.

Spinoza would disagree. — MysticMonist

So? Citing one exception merely proves the rule.

I'm not entirely consistent in what I mean by God. — MysticMonist

What you think is irrelevant. Your feelings aren't the standard by which words are defined.

For me, God is a range of possible realities. — MysticMonist

No, this will not do. Whatever it is you're talking about, it isn't God as traditionally and normatively understood. Make up another word to describe your idea or cease appropriating the word God. If you continue to appropriate it, you're just contributing to making it utterly meaningless.

You don't like the topic. — schopenhauer1

I do, though. It's just we're not really discussing it, and I don't understand the desire to avoid actually having an argument. I say let's have one, instead of these bizarre, cryptic little dances around the topic.

Can we call the infinitely many small random occurrences of the laws of nature that produced us, God?
Or rather should we? Or even, perceive it as an old man? — Frank Barroso

No, you're just redefining God to what it hasn't and doesn't normatively refer to.

Since you all missed my point about how it is not as much about the ethical credo as it is a jumping off point about contemplating existential questions — schopenhauer1

I don't know what this means. But let me take a stab at it. The first part about an "ethical credo" might mean that you don't think anti-natalism is a normative stance. My reply would be that it clearly is, so that to ignore the tasks of arguing in favor of it and defending it from criticism is to engage in special pleading: "listen to what I say, but don't make me defend myself."

By "contemplating existential questions," you might have in mind the kind of rhetorical questions you asked in the OP. But if that's the case, you're not requesting to explore genuine questions, because rhetorical questions answer themselves. This would mean that "contemplating existential questions" can only lead to a certain set of conclusions: those you hold to.

Please clarify if you'd like.

I can't be certain either way as to if there is God — MysticMonist

Why not?