Is the "well-regulated" argument for gun control inadvertently reinforcing RW talking points?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Many gun control advocates treat "regulation" to mean "restricted" whereas those without an prohibitionist agenda would see it as referring to "well-performing."

In fact, there is nothing restrictive in the nature of regulation. I believe it is an inherently RW argument to interpret regulations as restrictive, designed to deny otherwise well-meaning people with legitimate intentions access to the thing being "regulated." The RW constantly complains that regulations kill business whereas Progressives tend to see regulations as improving business environments and worker safety so as to make the economy more efficient/well-performing, not less.

So why reinforce RW talking points and validate their suspicions?

[Herman4747]

1. WHAT THE HELL???

Buddy, if "restrictive" means favoring THE RIGHT TO LIFEover mere property rights, then don't be surprised if a liberal is all for it!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. 1. It's not a "mere property" right.

It is a right to self-defense, which is, in itself, a right to life.

2. Alcohol would be mere property and considering that there is no moral right to intoxication yet alcohol leads to accidents, violent crimes, sexual assaults, domestic violence, child abuse, etc. I'm willing to wager your professed commit to life over things will be found "conflicted" if your policy preferences were applied to alcohol.

3. Of the 100+ million gun owners in the US only the barest fraction are a danger to you or anyone else. In fact, the vast majority of the truly dangerous ones are already criminals.

4. Speaking of reinforcing RW talking points...

[msongs]

3. sure are a lot of gun toting pre-school dangerous criminals in the USa nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. What does that even mean?

[DonP]

7. That poster seldom makes sense

All their posts here are "drive by snark.

But I bet they think they are very, very clever and pat themselves on the back for every post in the Gungeon.

If only all the gun control true believers were as irrelevant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. It's like having someone angrily throw a fistful of feathers at you.

All you can do is stand there with equal measures of curiosity, befuddlement and bemusement.

[Herman4747]

9. A switchblade can be used in "self-defense"...

Yet they are often banned.
Do you have a problem with switchblades being banned?
With regard to your point number 2, you would have lost your wager.
With regard to your point number 4, I prefer the situation in the U.K., where owning a gun for "self-defense" is not a lawful reason for possession. Where far less than 1 out of every 3 persons owns a gun, and where the homicide rater is (to use words you like) "the barest fraction" of what it is in the U.S. You don't give a damn about the carnage caused by widespread gun ownership, your property rights superseding the right of others to live. But I don't think selfishness is a liberal virtue, do you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. If someone used a switchblade to fight of a violent criminal attacker that law would serve no

purpose except to prosecute the victim of a violent crime.

Your citation of statistics is based on a correlation-equals-causation fallacy as some nations with no legal gun ownership have higher rates of violent crime or suicide and some nations with gun ownership levels comparable to the US have lower crime and suicide rates.

Repeating your "property rights" canard won't turn a lie into the truth. Self defense is a right to life and you have no right to take that away from good people.

So, do I take it you're in favor of reinstating Prohibition?

[beevul]

15. Yes.

Do you have a problem with switchblades being banned?

Absolutely.

You don't give a damn about the carnage caused by widespread gun ownership, your property rights superseding the right of others to live. But I don't think selfishness is a liberal virtue, do you?

What a piss poor argument. My property rights are not in conflict with the rights of others to live. There is no carnage caused by widespread gun ownership. Others directly and actively threatening peoples right to live, threatens their right to live, not people minding their own business not shooting or killing others. And yet you feel justified in attacking the people that aren't the problem.

Speaking of selfishness, going after the people that aren't causing the problem, because you don't like guns, is the textbook definition of selfish.

[gejohnston]

17. do you know why switchblades are banned?

hysteria created by the media and politicians, racism, and poor critical thinking. Kind of like pit bull dogs and "assault weapons".

During the early ‘50s, the white middle class became obsessed with the alleged danger posed by gangs of ethnic minorities allegedly roving America’s cities. That’s one reason for suburbia and the hysteria is what led to the Switchblade Knife Act, as well as the bans by individual states.

Urban street violence was the 1950’s version of The War On Christmas. Look over here while we develop the military-industrial complex! And the switchblade was sexy. What began with “The Toy That Kills” led to a raft of newspaper and tabloid stories, all vilifying the switchblade, then Hollywood got in on the act with Rebel Without A Cause, Crime In The Streets, 12 Angry Men, The Delinquents, High School Confidential, etc, of course culminating with the smash hit broadway musical, West Side Story. That debuted in 1957. It’s no coincidence that the federal Switchblade Knife Act was passed the next year.

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/why-switchblades-are-banned-1704050416
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#1950s_gang_usage_.26_controversy

[beevul]

5. I don't think that call is yours to make....

"... if "restrictive" means favoring THE RIGHT TO LIFEover mere property rights..."

I don't think that call is yours to make, except where your own life and your own property are concerned.

[benEzra]

6. If it were about "right to life",

then the gun control lobby's top priority wouldn't be banning guns that kill fewer people than bicycles do.

[Herman4747]

10. Interesting that you should mention "bicycle"...

...as a bicycle gets me to & from my job (& the supermarket, doctor's office, etc.). Do please explain all the good things a gun can do for me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. How about alcohol? No one ever stopped an attacker by getting drunk.

Though many an attack and other misdeed were born from alcohol.

[benEzra]

21. I'm not in a place where I can commute,

but I like to ride trails for fun and exercise (mine is an old GT iDrive mountain bike I picked up off Craigslist for $50 and repaired).

Depending on your living situation, interests, proximity to shooting ranges and/or hunting lands, and personal beliefs (whether you believe in resisting someone trying to harm you, vs. committed pacifist), a gun might not do much for you. Or it might be a symbol of independence, a tool to obtain locally sourced meat, a means of personal security, or a relaxing pastime.

Thing is, it's your right to choose for yourself, as long as you are a mentally competent adult with a clean record, and exercise your choices responsibly. Just as with riding, the risk/benefit tradeoff is going to vary person to person and situation to situation, but it's your choice to make. I hope it stays that way.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. False dichotomy.

Next...?

[jimmy the one]

13. walk like an egyptian

nuc uni: Many gun control advocates treat "regulation" to mean "restricted" whereas those without an prohibitionist agenda would see it as referring to "well-performing."

Here's webster's 1828 dictionary definition of 'regulate'; please point out which definition equates with 'well performing'. Thanks.

REGULATE 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

Since it seems you are using 'perform' as an intransitive verb (the militia performed well), rather than transitive (the militia performed the parade march), I'm not sure you can even apply def #2, which is the best for you obviously - gives at least some basis - but hard to imagine james madison thinking along webster's lines in def #2.

nuc uni: In fact, there is nothing restrictive in the nature of regulation.

webster's 1828 dictionary: REGULATE To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

You have to think like an egyptian to understand & argue properly word meanings.
A 225 year old egyptian, dismissing contemporary misconceptions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. So you're adopting the RW interpretations.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary...

...and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[jimmy the one]

22. bracketing

dscntnt: following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary......and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

You, or rather your source, simply cite, evidently, anecdotal writings from here & there, with no definition of 'regulate' provided, as I did by citing webster's 1828 dictionary, & herewith by citing samuel johnsons's 1755 dictionary, both of which bracket the writing of the 2ndA:

Sam Johnson's 1755 Dictionary
Régulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.] To adjust by rule or method.
Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.
To direct. Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman. Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=8802

dscntnt link: The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Well regulated could certainly be used in that fashion, and this argument could certainly be incorporated into its 2ndA interpretation, but in itself does not exclude rules & regulations over firearm use in the militia, and control thereof while in militia. Firearms would most surely need be calibrated & functioning correctly.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Specious. Controlling citizen's arms was not much a concern in 1791, they weren't as dangerous as guns today; it was more like prompting them to own arms for militia duty since they were so short handed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. re: "Controlling citizen's arms was not much a concern in 1791, they weren't as dangerous..."

Thank you for acknowledging that, the in 2A, the Founders were not trying to control private arms.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Since the amendment doesn't restrict the RKBA to the militia...

...I consider the "well-regulated" argument to be largely irrelevant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. You're correct but it's t fictions of others we're confronting.