also mentioned that most gun related deaths are drug and gang related — Harry Hindu
I have felt a shifting of the sands that I stand on in regards to this topic, so I am very interested in what you change you have found. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....) — tim wood
Race cars and monster trucks aren't banned completely. You can still own them, just not drive them on the road.I already covered this above. We DO outlaw the use of certain types of cars on the road that are particularly dangerous and for which there is no persuasive reason to allow people to drive them. And they are outlawed FOR EVERYONE. The examples given were racing cars and monster trucks.
So where is the consistency in your opposing the outlawing of private ownership of the gun equivalents of these - military-style assault rifles, of the kind used in this massacre and the last few before that? — andrewk
This is ridiculous. I never said that school shootings are drug-related. I said that most shooting are related to drugs and gangs. So you want to engage in selective outrage, or general outrage?School shootings are the reason for the rise in debate on gun laws once again and they are something that's becoming far too regular. Show me the statistic that says that most or any school shootings are drug or gang related. Blaming Americas gun violence on gangs and drugs just seems like a generic excuse for keeping the law the same. the reason we are all here is because school shootings challenge the gun laws the most, because kids are getting hold of guns somehow and using them to shoot and kill kids at their school. you cant change the reason we are here and start using the gang card. not only is it painfully naive but also racist. — David Solman
This sounds simple, but isn't. Absent civil society, it would be that simple. But that's not where most of live.What I have come to understand is that there is a natural right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, either of oneself, one's family, fellow citizens, or even country. — Thorongil
Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. What are the drug laws of other developed countries? — Harry Hindu
Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....)
— tim wood
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/index-en.aspx
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/bates-gun-violence-drug-policy/index.html
http://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459
Where are your stats? — Harry Hindu
Under the US Constitution, there are three unalienable rights, to secure which all the others are surrendered to civil authority. The rest are alienable. — tim wood
You mention, "bear arms for the purpose of...." Why "bear arms"? Why not, "have a gun available"? Or are you so at risk where you live that you must carry? — tim wood
But a natural right to a gun for that purpose? That's a different right, and by no means a natural one. — tim wood
Perhaps you might think some more about natural rights, what they really are. — tim wood
so the law needs to change to make it less accessible — David Solman
You are correct. Not misinformed - I know it's the Declaration - just momentarily stupid. My bad. Now, are you one of those that "interprets" the 2d amendment as affording you as an individual a "right" to have a gun? If so, please share with me how you get that, from the amendment.You are misinformed. The Declaration of Independence, which does not hold the same legal status as the U.S. Constitution, lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution assumes these rights but does not list them. It provides a Bill of Rights, most of which are based on the aforementioned natural rights, including the Second Amendment. — Thorongil
Do you not know what the words "bear" and "arms" mean? — Thorongil
Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense. I've since edited my comment to make that clear. — Thorongil
So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. — Thorongil
if you cant see that the accessibility of guns is the problem here than you're just being stupid. — David Solman
id suggest you read the article before posting here. — David Solman
Now, are you one of those that "interprets" the 2d amendment as affording you as an individual a "right" to have a gun? If so, please share with me how you get that, from the amendment. — tim wood
And you apparently decline my invitation to consider natural rights more closely. — tim wood
Maybe I can persuade you to, if you're of an open mind - if it's closed you're unlikely to be persuaded of anything. — tim wood
And hence my question: whether you misuse "bearing arms" or you just want to carry your weapon. — tim wood
Because how could carrying a weapon be within the horizon of a natural right unless you are at all times threatened with like force? — tim wood
You want to carry a gun (yes?) — tim wood
How do you get that from the principle - the natural right? You're not at all times subject to the threat of lethal harm, are you? In short, your claim of a right to "bear arms" calls for additional argument beyond the principle. What is that argument? — tim wood
Most rights (I cannot think of an exception), while they may be expressed in positive terms, are in substance negatives on what others may do. — tim wood
Are you confusing buying guns with having guns? The suggestion was that buying should be tightened up. Getting guns away from folks who have them is a whole other problem. — tim wood
Since we apparently agree that we have the natural right to self-defense, the missing premise you're looking for is that I have the right to adequate, effective, and reasonable means of self-defense. This includes firearms. — Thorongil
so the law needs to change to make it less accessible
— David Solman
So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. I'm quite certain everyone, including those evil people at the NRA, would be in favor of such a law if it existed, so if you've discovered the magic formula, by all means share it with us. — Thorongil
You spoke of "bearing arms." That means carrying them, not just having them. — tim wood
Do you claim a right to carry, absent threat? — tim wood
I am. The grammar of the Amendment makes it clear. — Thorongil
Not sure to what purpose who gave those quotes. — Thorongil
Do you claim a right to carry, absent threat?
— tim wood
Yes, that's why the argument is one of principle, not utility. — Thorongil
I don't know where on earth you call home, but you might like Texas or Florida, or a number of other states. Or you might like Massachusetts, the state with the lowest gun death rate. Of course, you might have to leave your gun at home, to be safe. — tim wood
I didn't include suicide for good reason. People have the right to choose to live their lives or end it. They do not have the right to end other people's lives and that is what we have been discussing in this thread. When the gun control debate centers around preventing violent crime I don't see suicide as being the correct place for that discussion.It's suicide. Just search "gun deaths in America." You'll come up with lots of information along the same lines. — tim wood
Wrong. Trump and the rest of the govt. are not saying the same thing as me. I have proposed that legalizing, or at least de-criminalizing drugs, is a means of making a drastic cut in the number of homicides where guns are involved. I already addressed the mental health issue in my first post in this thread.dude the reason we are hear is to discuss the problem with guns and mentally ill kids getting hold of guns easily. so the law needs to change to make it less accessible. The reason the laws don't change is because of Trump and the rest of the government saying the same thing as you. The reason it doesn't change is because this gets blamed on gangs and drugs every time, even if it was a child that everyone thought was a good kid — David Solman
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. — Supreme Court - Columbia vs. Heller
When you reach a certain age, and have been made a member of the community of educated persons (as I am sure you are both), expressions such as this by Edmund Burke take on life and make sense: "It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do."I don't see the relevance of this. In case you were unaware, Massachusettsians possess the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment applies universally. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.