or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Showdown at the Supreme Court - Page 3

post #81 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Well, obviously we need to outlaw fists, feet and baseball bats as well, not to mention knives, ice picks, box cutters and others...

Again, it's a balance between relative danger of a device and relative utility of a device.

Baseball bats -- useful, not very unsafe. What's the percentage of all murders committed using baseball bats? I would think strangulation would be more prevalent. What's the ratio of the number of baseball bats owned vs. the number of baseball bats used to commit crime? Less than for guns, I'm sure.

Real story. Back when I was living in the US, I came home from work during lunch one day, and as I drove up the driveway, I saw three or four men on the roof of my house. They had gone through a second story window and were stealing things from the master bedroom. They had broken the security shutters on the outside of the window, and this was before the house had an alarm.

I jumped out of my car and opened the trunk, and pulled out a baseball bat, rushing toward them and waving the bat in the air.

They ran off, leaving bags of loot on the roof. The police later caught them trying to break into another house (dumb teenagers, but I hadn't known that at the time).

I managed to save the contents of my house and avoid any violence, all without a gun. Actually, and this is the funny part, it wasn't even a real baseball bat. It was a toy bat made out of rubber and foam.

Most criminals don't want confrontation. They will run away when you shout at them. A baseball bat helps, though.

Knives, their utility is irreplaceable. Not so with guns. You could make an argument that rifles are useful for sport hunting, but handguns serve no other purpose besides violence and threat of violence. Oh... and using the butt end to drive a nail when you can't find your hammer...
post #82 of 128
I was being somewhat sarcastic, but honestly it wouldn't bother me personally if handguns were outlawed. As you said they are the modern version of swords, single purpose.
Of course, to many that would be the tip of the iceberg.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #83 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, it's a balance between relative danger of a device and relative utility of a device.

Baseball bats -- useful, not very unsafe. What's the percentage of all murders committed using baseball bats? I would think strangulation would be more prevalent. What's the ratio of the number of baseball bats owned vs. the number of baseball bats used to commit crime? Less than for guns, I'm sure.

Real story. Back when I was living in the US, I came home from work during lunch one day, and as I drove up the driveway, I saw three or four men on the roof of my house. They had gone through a second story window and were stealing things from the master bedroom. They had broken the security shutters on the outside of the window, and this was before the house had an alarm.

I jumped out of my car and opened the trunk, and pulled out a baseball bat, rushing toward them and waving the bat in the air.

They ran off, leaving bags of loot on the roof. The police later caught them trying to break into another house (dumb teenagers, but I hadn't known that at the time).

I managed to save the contents of my house and avoid any violence, all without a gun. Actually, and this is the funny part, it wasn't even a real baseball bat. It was a toy bat made out of rubber and foam.

Most criminals don't want confrontation. They will run away when you shout at them. A baseball bat helps, though.

Knives, their utility is irreplaceable. Not so with guns. You could make an argument that rifles are useful for sport hunting, but handguns serve no other purpose besides violence and threat of violence. Oh... and using the butt end to drive a nail when you can't find your hammer...

Nice to hear you had a favorable outcome in your confrontation with these misguided robbers, but if they had guns, would you still rather just have a rubber/foam baseball bat? What about if your wife or kids had been home during this robbery? Would that change your mind about what tools you have in your arsenal to defend yourself and your family?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Nice to hear you had a favorable outcome in your confrontation with these misguided robbers, but if they had guns, would you still rather just have a rubber/foam baseball bat? What about if your wife or kids had been home during this robbery? Would that change your mind about what tools you have in your arsenal to defend yourself and your family?

Let's see. If I have a gun... and pull it out... and they are armed... there's a very big possibility someone will get shot. If I have a baseball bat, and they are armed, there is little chance of that happening. They may pull the gun and make off with my stuff. If they are unarmed, and I have a gun, there's no difference from what happened. If they are unarmed and I have a baseball bat, there's a chance they will call my bluff and some violence will ensue. But it's very unlikely anyone will get killed.

All in all it looks like better odds without the gun.
post #85 of 128
If you have the choice, why live someplace where crime is bad enough you feel like you need a handgun? Not necessarily leave the city, but a different neighborhood/suburb. I have lived in some large, fairly 'sketchy' cities on an enlisted military budget and never lived in an area bad enough that I felt I or my family needed to be armed, even with me being deployed overseas for long periods of time. Where we live now I don't even lock the car doors at night, and it's only 9 miles from a medium sized city and the Interstate.

(Note, this isn't aimed specifically at SpamSandwich or tonton, they just gave me the thought)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #86 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Let's see. If I have a gun... and pull it out... and they are armed... there's a very big possibility someone will get shot. If I have a baseball bat, and they are armed, there is little chance of that happening. They may pull the gun and make off with my stuff. If they are unarmed, and I have a gun, there's no difference from what happened. If they are unarmed and I have a baseball bat, there's a chance they will call my bluff and some violence will ensue. But it's very unlikely anyone will get killed.

All in all it looks like better odds without the gun.

Why do all the negative consequences disappear once you don't have a gun even if they do? Likewise why are there no negative consequences with the bat?

Where's the scenario where they have bats and you have a bat and they pull them out and beat you unconscious and permanently disable you via head injuries or just outright kill you with several blows?

Where's the scenario where you hold them at bay via the gun and have them arrested instead of merely moving the victim down the road as happened in your case. You note the police happened to catch them there but what if they hadn't? You get off free due to the bat, but your fellow humans still get victimized. That sounds pretty heartless and uncaring.

Where's the scenario where you have a bat and they have guns so they force you to gratify them at gunpoint after knocking your teeth out with the bat and likewise they use the bat for some interesting body cavity probes?

The problem here is a lack of imagination.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why do all the negative consequences disappear once you don't have a gun even if they do? Likewise why are there no negative consequences with the bat?

Where's the scenario where they have bats and you have a bat and they pull them out and beat you unconscious and permanently disable you via head injuries or just outright kill you with several blows?

Where's the scenario where you hold them at bay via the gun and have them arrested instead of merely moving the victim down the road as happened in your case. You note the police happened to catch them there but what if they hadn't? You get off free due to the bat, but your fellow humans still get victimized. That sounds pretty heartless and uncaring.

Where's the scenario where you have a bat and they have guns so they force you to gratify them at gunpoint after knocking your teeth out with the bat and likewise they use the bat for some interesting body cavity probes?

The problem here is a lack of imagination.

One can imagine a drive by swinging! The stray bat swings free of the " Batman " ( instead of gunman ), goes through a wall, hitting and killing an innocent person in their living room. Yeah they're just the same.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #88 of 128
CSM has an article that makes an amazing point.

Quote:
Lessons from history

“During the 20th Century, more than 70 million people, after first being disarmed, were slaughtered by their own governments,” he wrote. “This pattern appeared in Ottoman Turkey (1915-1917), the Soviet Union (1929-1945), Nazi Germany and occupied Europe (1933-1945), Nationalist China (1927-1949), Communist China (1949-1952, 1957-1960, and 1966-1970, Guatemala (1960-1981), Uganda (1971-1979), Cambodia (1975-1979), and Rwanda (1994) just to name a few.”

He added: “The Second Amendment was created as the final barricade against the unthinkable – the day when the rest of our Constitutional safeguards have failed us and we stand exposed to the brutal reality that so many in history have understood only too late.”

What's 70 million dead humans among friends. Isn't that like a rounding error when the intentions are good?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 128
It's pretty clear to me:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's pretty clear to me:
-- George Mason
-- Tench Coxe
-- Alexander Hamilton
-- Samuel Adams (Great Beer!)
-- James Madison
-- John Adams
-- Noah Webster
-- Tenche Coxe
-- Richard Henry Lee
-- Thomas Jefferson
-- James Madison
-- Elbridge Gerry
-- George Mason
-- Alexander Hamilton
-- Patrick Henry
-- Zacharia Johnson
-- Hubert H. Humphrey
-- Joseph Story
-- James Burgh
-- Thomas M. Cooley
--Samuel Adams
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

What's clear? That you sprout off a list of quotes attributable to NOT ONE PERSON who has lived in the context of rocket-propelled grenades?

Again. Context. Obsolete.

In today's society guns solve none of the problems the founding fathers and others envisioned in drafting/defending the Second Amendment. And in all other contexts, they cause more problems than they solve.
post #91 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why do all the negative consequences disappear once you don't have a gun even if they do? Likewise why are there no negative consequences with the bat?

I guess you, as usual, didn't read what I wrote.
"They may pull the gun and make off with my stuff." <-- negative consequence
"...there's a chance they will call my bluff and some violence will ensue." < -- negative consequence
Quote:
Where's the scenario where they have bats and you have a bat and they pull them out and beat you unconscious and permanently disable you via head injuries or just outright kill you with several blows?

See #2 above.
Quote:
Where's the scenario where you hold them at bay via the gun and have them arrested instead of merely moving the victim down the road as happened in your case. You note the police happened to catch them there but what if they hadn't? You get off free due to the bat, but your fellow humans still get victimized. That sounds pretty heartless and uncaring.

That's possible, but considering the likelihood of violence should a gun be involved, and the dire consequence of such violence, I believe it's much better to chase them off.
Quote:
Where's the scenario where you have a bat and they have guns so they force you to gratify them at gunpoint after knocking your teeth out with the bat and likewise they use the bat for some interesting body cavity probes?

You've got a very paranoid imagination. No wonder you're so scared. Or is that your secret fantasy? Judging by the actions of several homophobic Republicans, I'm not sure what to think about this remark...
Quote:
The problem here is a lack of imagination.

No, the problem here is a lack of reality.
post #92 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I guess you, as usual, didn't read what I wrote.
"They may pull the gun and make off with my stuff." <-- negative consequence
"...there's a chance they will call my bluff and some violence will ensue." < -- negative consequence

I read those, I just don't consider them negative in the context of what you are discussing. Some violence and losing some possessions to a robbery aren't really negative. Even the language there is minimizing what happens.

Quote:
See #2 above.

So you would call death or profound disfigurement "some violence"? That is like calling rape 'some discomfort'.

Quote:
That's possible, but considering the likelihood of violence should a gun be involved, and the dire consequence of such violence, I believe it's much better to chase them off.

If the likelihood of violence remains high, how is shifting the problem moral? I asked this and you've still ignored it.

Quote:
You've got a very paranoid imagination. No wonder you're so scared. Or is that your secret fantasy? Judging by the actions of several homophobic Republicans, I'm not sure what to think about this remark...

I've shared what firearms I own. That said the reality is that this imagery helped you ponder the possibility of rape and sexual assault which many women do have to be very paranoid about happening to them.

Quote:
No, the problem here is a lack of reality.

The reality is that while as a 5'10" man you may have felt fine attempting to deal with several teens armed with a bat, you aren't the only consideration. A 5' tall woman of 110 lbs could find herself walking into the same scenario and she has to ponder more than her possessions. Self-defense classes help some sure, but the great equalizer in force is firearms. The reality is that when you wander down a dark walkway you think about your wallet and she has to think about much more than that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 128
Ok, only women with small frames can carry handguns. Problem solved!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #94 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What's clear? That you sprout off a list of quotes attributable to NOT ONE PERSON who has lived in the context of rocket-propelled grenades?

Again. Context. Obsolete.

In today's society guns solve none of the problems the founding fathers and others envisioned in drafting/defending the Second Amendment. And in all other contexts, they cause more problems than they solve.

What other right guaranteed you by the constitution might expire because it's obsolete, tonton?

Your attempts to impose a subjective context fails unless you can demonstrate relevance.
post #95 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What's clear? That you sprout off a list of quotes attributable to NOT ONE PERSON who has lived in the context of rocket-propelled grenades?

Again. Context. Obsolete.

In today's society guns solve none of the problems the founding fathers and others envisioned in drafting/defending the Second Amendment. And in all other contexts, they cause more problems than they solve.

What about the Amendment process? Or is that "obsolete", too?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #96 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What about the Amendment process? Or is that "obsolete", too?

You really haven't read my posts in this thread have you?

If you had, you would see that I support the amendment process for repealing the Second Amendment. You would also see that I think the Supreme Court is going to rule against Chicago.
post #97 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I read those, I just don't consider them negative in the context of what you are discussing. Some violence and losing some possessions to a robbery aren't really negative.

Compared to being SHOT, no, they aren't... which is my point... Eureka!
post #98 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you would call death or profound disfigurement "some violence"? That is like calling rape 'some discomfort'.

Are you honestly saying that the risk of death from a robbery at knifepoint or by a baseball bat is anywhere near as great as the risk of death from a robbery at gunpoint?
post #99 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If the likelihood of violence remains high, how is shifting the problem moral? I asked this and you've still ignored it.

Because I honestly don't believe the likelihood of violence is that high. I think it's about equal if firearms are involved, but the consequences of violence are far reduced without the guns.
post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

What other right guaranteed you by the constitution might expire because it's obsolete, tonton?

I don't know. Does there have to be more than one example to make this one valid?

But how about the right to live in a society free of alcohol? That was guaranteed in the constitution too. And it was found to be nonviable. It doesn't matter that it wasn't there to begin with. Neither was the second amendment. It was an amendment to the original document, just like the eighteenth was.
post #101 of 128
Holy inflated post count Batman!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Compared to being SHOT, no, they aren't... which is my point... Eureka!

No Eureka, are you losing it? I point out the true negatives. You note you did point out some negative points. I note you minimized the negatives and the language and then point out the true negative outcomes. You declare that since you didn't note the true negatives, there are no negatives which was precisely your point.

Hey guess what. The fact that you think there might be a few items stolen and that it might be a negative but not really a true negative in no fashion disproves nor removes the points I made about the possibility or rape, murder, physical harm, or simply pushing the problem down the road. All those were possible under the exact same scenarios you described. You're ignoring them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Are you honestly saying that the risk of death from a robbery at knifepoint or by a baseball bat is anywhere near as great as the risk of death from a robbery at gunpoint?

As the police love to note, the thing that raises the risk isn't the weapon, but your response. In all the scenarios you've noted, you didn't have the party act different because of the weapon. You had yourself REACT differently due to the weapon. Thus you were willing to go after the kids with a bat if you thought they didn't have a gun but were not willing to do this if they did.

The one way street on reasoning here is rather amazing. You admit guns would alter your own actions but won't consider the reverse to be true.

You also wouldn't assign any additional actions to the robbers when you changed their weapons. You merely noted your possible reactions. This is where I came in and noted it is absolutely possible for them to escalate what they do regardless of your reaction. They can still beat you, rape you and murder you, all without a gun. You seem to think them less likely to do this when you don't have a gun which is the exact reasoning of yourself when applying your actions toward them, but not theirs to you.

They have guns and you have a bat. In your scenario they force you to put the bat down and leave with your possessions.

Why is that not true with the gun?

They have say six guns trained on you. You put your gun down, and they take your possessions and leave. Why does it have to become a shoot out?

Better still, why do you even have to confront them as you would have to do with the bat. Why not merely take cover and blow their knee caps off when they are carrying your possessions to their car with no shouting, awareness or anything else on your part.

Why do you think they will fail to harm you when they have overwhelming force but not when they have comparable force? You make them more prone to attack you with a bat, but more prone to leave you alone when they have guns. What is the reasoning there because it doesn't follow at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because I honestly don't believe the likelihood of violence is not high. I think it's about equal if firearms are involved, but the consequences of violence are far reduced without the guns.

There is no reasoning model that supports this. For some reason when they have overwhelming force against you, it (in your mind) makes them less prone to use it.

With fists they are willing to run away.
With a bat they are willing to risk a physical confrontation
With a gun they are willing to... run away again or just walk away with possessions?!?

How about with guns they can leave no witnesses behind while not having to engage in that whole confrontation bit so they just shoot you where you stand and walk away. They are willing to do this when you have fists and a bat but might give it a second thought if you could kill a few of them in return.

That scenario makes sense to me. None of yours do. The actions and reactions have to match along with the weapons on both sides.

You have nothing. They have nothing but have numbers (4-6.) You admit your own reaction to their action would be to do nothing because of the disparity.
You have a bat. They have nothing but have numbers. You admit your own reaction to their action would be to confront with the weapon hoping it offsets the numbers.
You have a gun. They have nothing but numbers. You SHOULD admit that you would be able to confront them and hold them for the police or at a minimum confront.

You have nothing. They have numbers and a bat. You should admit you wouldn't confront or if you did confront, you are screwed due to overwhelming force. They will do whatever they want to you when they have 4-6 people with fists and bats.
You have nothing. They have numbers and guns. You should admit you wouldn't confront or if you did confront, you are screwed due to overwhelming force. They will do whatever they want to you when they have 4-6 people with guns.
You have a bat. They have numbers and a bat. You should admit you wouldn't confront or if you did confront, you are screwed due to overwhelming force. They will do whatever they want to you when they have 4-6 people with fists and bats.
You have a gun. They have numbers and guns. You should admit you wouldn't confront or if you did confront, you are screwed due to overwhelming force. They will do whatever they want to you when they have 4-6 people with fists and guns. The only point to consider here is they might be less inclined to exercise force here since the cost to do so raises on their part.

The only variable that lessens the possibility of force being used against you is being met with an equal or overwhelming opposing force. This is what women understand when walking to a car or walking home alone. They had better raise the stakes via numbers, via lighting and the possibility of the perp being spotted, via pepper spray, or via a gun.

If the stakes are not raised, the people with the ability to render violence, don't go passive as you suggest. Rather they do whatever they want.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #102 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't know. Does there have to be more than one example to make this one valid?

But how about the right to live in a society free of alcohol? That was guaranteed in the constitution too. And it was found to be nonviable. It doesn't matter that it wasn't there to begin with. Neither was the second amendment. It was an amendment to the original document, just like the eighteenth was.

Actually that right wasn't found in the Constitution. The Constitution was changed via amendment to allow prohibition and was changed later to remove prohibition.

See the 18th and 21st amendments there bud.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 128

Look at my post again. I know the history of the Constitution. The only thing in a legal context that separates the 2nd Amendment from the 18th Amendment was time frame.

For fourteen years the right to live in a society where alcohol could not be legally sold was a constitutional right. It was nonviable. It was repealed.

Fourteen years vs. 2 hundred years... the only difference is duration. Just because a right is in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't possibly be repealed. As I said before, the Constitution was designed with that idea specifically in mind. And the process has been used. There's nothing stopping it from being used again when the need arises.
post #104 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Christ, you really watch too much TV. You're a paranoid coward, with no grasp on the reality of risks and dangers. Hold on to those guns with your cold, dead hands, Nick.

Even if I were living in the States, you, as a gun owner have a greatly increased chance of death by violence than I have. It's just a statistical fact that gun advocates like to ignore.

So cite the fact then.

Here are some of mine. Here are the crimes per capita by country. Not several of those happiest places and also disarmed places still have more crimes per capita.


The traits that lead toward more increased of chance of death by violence involve age, race and income. A large part of the reason our rate of violence is higher is black on black/brown on brown crime associated with gangs. We are of comparable age, the same race from what I understand and both of us probably would earn a decent income. Our statistical likelihood would be the same living in the same neighborhood. Mine would not be higher.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Look at my post again. I know the history of the Constitution. The only thing in a legal context that separates the 2nd Amendment from the 18th Amendment was time frame.

For fourteen years the right to live in a society where alcohol could not be legally sold was a constitutional right. It was nonviable. It was repealed.

Fourteen years vs. 2 hundred years... the only difference is duration. Just because a right is in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't possibly be repealed. As I said before, the Constitution was designed with that idea specifically in mind. And the process has been used. There's nothing stopping it from being used again when the need arises.

The point stands. The amendment did not become obsolete or 'expire'. Rather the Constitution was amended and when the consequences of that amendment made themselves known, it was altered again back to the original state.

If anything, since the rate of criminality and problems shot up dramatically in those years, you've shown that removing rights is very, very problematic.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #106 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But how about the right to live in a society free of alcohol? That was guaranteed in the constitution too. And it was found to be nonviable.

The issue here seems to be the understanding of what is a right. I know that people and politicians like to claim all sorts of rights that may or may not really exist and this is a fundamental problem today which leads to fundamental governing and policy errors.

I would argue that "the right to live in a society free of alcohol" is a "right" fabricated out of whole cloth. It isn't real. Just because it appeared on some piece of paper or was declared as such by a bunch of people at one time doesn't it make it a real right. In fact implementing laws centered around such a thing likely leads to violations of people's more fundamental rights.

For example: the right to create, own, sell, purchase and consume alcohol seems to be an obvious extension of a person's right to their own life, liberty and property. Under that understanding the 18th amendment was actually a violation of people's more fundamental rights and was, correctly, repealed at a later time. That it was repealed for pragmatic reasons (the violence created by its existence) doesn't change the underlying invalid nature of this "right to live in a society free of alcohol."

Getting back to the 2nd amendment, this also seems to be an obvious derivative right from our fundamental rights life, liberty and property in that it allows the ownership and use of firearms for defensive purposes (not to mention the other legitimate, non-defensive reasons for owning and using a firearm.)

Finally, the suggestion that certain things, specifically rights, enumerated in the constitution become obsolete or expire implies that they aren't or weren't really rights to begin with or your concept of what rights are is flawed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #107 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't know. Does there have to be more than one example to make this one valid?

But how about the right to live in a society free of alcohol? That was guaranteed in the constitution too. And it was found to be nonviable. It doesn't matter that it wasn't there to begin with. Neither was the second amendment. It was an amendment to the original document, just like the eighteenth was.

Alcohol was never banned by the constitution.
post #108 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

If you have the choice, why live someplace where crime is bad enough you feel like you need a handgun? Not necessarily leave the city, but a different neighborhood/suburb. I have lived in some large, fairly 'sketchy' cities on an enlisted military budget and never lived in an area bad enough that I felt I or my family needed to be armed, even with me being deployed overseas for long periods of time. Where we live now I don't even lock the car doors at night, and it's only 9 miles from a medium sized city and the Interstate.

(Note, this isn't aimed specifically at SpamSandwich or tonton, they just gave me the thought)

Keep in mind, I'm against violence but I do believe people need to be allowed self-defense if they are faced with potentially deadly force used against them. Where you live makes a difference, but in this discussion I think it's not the main the point.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Alcohol was never banned by the constitution.

A fine line maybe, but what the 18th amendment says is:

Quote:
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Once any existing stock of liquor was consumed or otherwise made non-usable, the next point is whether fermentation, distillation or brewing by an individual could be considered "the manufacture" of these items. If it is then in effect alcohol was banned. Even if this was not considered to be manufacturing under this amendment, they would have still practically banned alcohol.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

A fine line maybe, but what the 18th amendment says is:



Once any existing stock of liquor was consumed or otherwise made non-usable, the next point is whether fermentation, distillation or brewing by an individual could be considered "the manufacture" of these items. If it is then in effect alcohol was banned. Even if this was not considered to be manufacturing under this amendment, they would have still practically banned alcohol.

It is what it is - alcohol wasn't banned. That's a fact.

The manufacture, transportation and sale of items aren't "rights" and that's why the sale of handguns isn't the point here either - it's the possession of guns that was recognized as an explicit right. Chicago isn't banning the sale of handguns, they ban registering handguns entirely after 1982.
..

Folks can make strawmen out of alcohol, they're still strawmen.
post #111 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It is what it is - alcohol wasn't banned. That's a fact.

I really don't see how you can say this. Is there subtle interpretation I am missing? The text seems fairly clear to me. Please explain your claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The manufacture, transportation and sale of items aren't "rights"

That's highly debatable. In fact I would completely disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

it's the possession of guns that was recognized as an explicit right.

Yes, but if you have banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of them possession is effectively banned as well. This approach is simply a roundabout way to achieve the ban.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I really don't see how you can say this. Is there subtle interpretation I am missing? The text seems fairly clear to me. Please explain your claim.

Read and examine the constitution for yourself - alcohol wasn't banned. Alcohol possession was never enumerated as a right, and it was never banned, either. It can't be any clearer. Gun ownership, however, was. Explicitly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's highly debatable. In fact I would completely disagree.

"Rights" as in personal enumerated constitutional rights, hence the quotation marks.
post #113 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"Rights" as in personal enumerated constitutional rights, hence the quotation marks.

But that's a kind of limited view of rights. This was the fear of some people when they added the bill of rights, that some would assume only the ones listed are actual rights. So they added the 9th as a kind of "catch all." Furthermore those others (manufacture, transportation and sale of items) seem like pretty clear derivations from the rights of life, liberty and property whereas the "right" to free of something (like being in a society without any alcohol or guns or profanity or pornography) seems much less like a reasonable derivative or extension of the fundamental rights.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #114 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Read and examine the constitution for yourself - alcohol wasn't banned.

I am looking at 18th amendment right now. What am I missing? Are you playing word games here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Alcohol possession was never enumerated as a right

It doesn't matter. The 9th amendment applies in that case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

and it was never banned, either.

I believe you are wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It can't be any clearer.

Obviously it could be because I'm not getting what you are saying.

Are you saying that the amendments are not part of the constitution?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But that's a kind of limited view of rights. This was the fear of some people when they added the bill of rights, that some would assume only the ones listed are actual rights. So they added the 9th as a kind of "catch all." Furthermore those others (manufacture, transportation and sale of items) seem like pretty clear derivations from the rights of life, liberty and property whereas the "right" to free of something (like being in a society without any alcohol or guns or profanity or pornography) seems much less like a reasonable derivative or extension of the fundamental rights.

There's no deed to derive the right to bear arms. Of course you'd like to equate derived and reasonable rights in order to obfuscate the issue with tangents to gain an imagined advantage...and if that's not your objective I'm not sure why you present the argument you do.

My advantage is the explicit nature of the right as enumerated in the constitution. For the purposes of this conversation, it's the only necessary and relevant point.
post #116 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There's no deed to derive the right to bear arms, for instance.

I agree with this. But where I think you are in danger is in attributing full and final authority to the definition, declaration and enumeration of rights to the constitution. This suggests that were some right (like the one to bear arms) removed we would no longer have it. Perhaps constitutionally this is true, but it begs the question of whether the constitution is the final authority on this issue. To me that seems like quite dangerous territory because the list starts looking more like a bill of privileges or permissions which can be simply revoked at the whim and wishes of the majority. This is not my understanding of what a right is at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I agree with this. But where I think you are in danger is in attributing full and final authority to the definition, declaration and enumeration of rights to the constitution. This suggests that were some right (like the one to bear arms) removed we would no longer have it. Perhaps constitutionally this is true, but is beg the question of whether the constitution is the final authority on this question. To me that seems like quite dangerous territory because the list starts looking more like a bill of privileges or permissions which can be simply revoked at the whim and wishes of the majority. This is not my understanding of what a right is at all.

This isn't a discussion of "rights", it's a discussion of a specific and explicit right. There have been tangents, of course, but we all have that right
post #118 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

This isn't a discussion of "rights", it's a discussion of a specific and explicit right.

Pardon me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #119 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Pardon me.

Sorry, I lack the authority to do so. Perhaps if you asked your Governor...?

The problem with reasonable discussions here in this forum is that attempting to have a reasonable discussion fails immediately due to people who want to prove that the exceptions to rules have parity with rules and then allow all exceptions...

...but not vice versa.
post #120 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I agree with this. But where I think you are in danger is in attributing full and final authority to the definition, declaration and enumeration of rights to the constitution. This suggests that were some right (like the one to bear arms) removed we would no longer have it. Perhaps constitutionally this is true, but it begs the question of whether the constitution is the final authority on this issue. To me that seems like quite dangerous territory because the list starts looking more like a bill of privileges or permissions which can be simply revoked at the whim and wishes of the majority. This is not my understanding of what a right is at all.

While that would be true from a philosophical standpoint, the specific right in the constitution to bear arms prevents the Government from making laws that would infringe that right. Whether a lot of people wanted them to or not. The Government falling under the jurisdiction of constitutional law is held in check this way. If the specific right were not in the Constitution then it would not be a right in the sense of this argument and thus could be infringed upon at will if it were a popular enough issue.

It is also not carved in stone as you could make an amendment to the Constitution that would repeal that right. If the issue is that critical and the belief popularly held it can and should be dealt with in this manner.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court