A logical argument for gun rights in the US

[Callisto32]

Okay, I think that this may just be the strongest argument for gun rights in the US that I have ever heard. I wish I could take credit for it, but I am just a messenger. I'd like responses to and attacks against this argument, please. Though those of you who wish to attack should be fairly warned that I want it to be attacked so that I may refine the argument further. "Don't raise your voice, get a better argument."

In the United States, the sovereignty lies with the citizens
All political powers are subordinate to the sovereign
It is the sovereign that delegates abilities and responsibilities to the several subordinate entities
The sovereign cannot delegate that which is not in its possession to begin with (I can't give you $300 I don't have. Well, Unless I am a bank practicing fractional lending, but that is another matter entirely :D)
Some of these subordinate entities (LE entities, the military et cetera) are allowed the possession and use of firearms

Therefore: The citizens must have a right to the possession and use of firearms, otherwise the citizenry (sovereign) would not be able to provide the ability to do so to its subordinate entities.

Keep in mind that I have likely missed a bit or widget here or there.

Please, Discuss.

[bluerum]

1. For Petes sake. Get a life.

[coriolis]

2. I must admit, that is the most cogent and articulate dissent I have seen in years.

Nicely done.

[Callisto32]

3. ...

Maybe I should have specified that I was only looking for constructive replies....

In response: This happens to be something about which I feel passionately, just like whatever you have that gets your blood going. If you think that my causes are pointless, great. But you don't have to ridicule me for it. Doing so only suggests that YOU have little enough of a life that you have time to berate people you just find silly, rather than being happy to just look, giggle, and walk on and do something productive.

[bluerum]

21. Hmm. I WAS being constructive. Lobbying for gun proliferation is not what I

call constructive use of ones time.

If all you have to do is look for reasons why people should owns guns, you need to do a serious reality check.

[tucsonlib]

4. Nice Try, But...

If this argument is valid, shouldn't I then have the right to stroll on down to the corner store and purchase the latest model surface-to-air missile?

[bossy22]

5. you technically can

there is no law saying you can- go fill out your Form 4, get the CLEO to sign off on it, pay your tax stamp- bring home your new missile...in fact in some states- the only reasoning you need is self defense

[tucsonlib]

6. No Lines Drawn?

How about land mines, then? Cluster bombs? Could I interest you in a suitcase-sized tactical nuclear device?
If this is how you interpret the Bill of Rights, I'm afraid you've lost me. Do you also advocate my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

[bossy22]

7. no im not interpreting the bill of rights

nor am i passing judgement on whether something should be legal or illegal....im only interperting the NFA of 1934

Land mines- legal
cluster bombs- legal
nukes- i think they are legal nationally but international treaties make it illegal
artillary- legal
tanks with working guns- legal
sidewinder missles- legal
MOABs-Legal


The price though is very expensive- and you ahve to find a Law Enforcement Cheif willing to okay you to own those things- there are a good amount of them out there- infact in some counties police departments auction off full auto M16's to qualifying civilians- all legal paperwork is filled out before the transfer ofcourse

if you are asking my belief on what the 2A protects, ill tell you
i believe it protects all standard infantry weapons- rifles (semi-auto, full auto, bolt action) and handguns
basically any weapon that a normal soldier would carry on him

[tucsonlib]

9. Sorry, I was really trying to address my comments to the original post

Still, just gotta ask:
Re: Your belief that the 2A protects "basically any weapon that a normal soldier would carry on him"
Does this include flame-throwers? Shoulder-launched missiles? Grenades? Satchel charges? And if not, why not?

[bossy22]

10. those are not

standard infantry firearms (i should have said that)

Flame throwers, missile launchers, charges are all specialty weapons designed for special purposes- normal infantrymen don't usually carry them unless they have been specialized

grenades can be logically applied to the standard of "standard infantry arms" but i think they are not "standard enough" Every infantry man has a rifle and a handgun, not a grenade

[gorfle]

24. It should be noted

It should be noted that flame throwers are not regulated by the BATFE. In fact they are legal to own with no paperwork. I've seen them for sale at gun shows.

[Callisto32]

8. Well, yes, actually

I certainly do not have a problem with anybody owning any of those things, so long as they are not used to the harm of others outside of a case of self-defense of defense of a third party in which only the assailant is targeted. While implementation of such a thing with a small nuke may be highly unlikely, I have no problem with somebody owning one, again so long as they are not damaging others or others' property with it.

As for the "FIRE!" thing.. Yes, I sure do, providing there is, in fact, a fire. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, you are simply informing those in the theater as to the situation. If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus, well then I'd have a severe problem with your actions.

You see, fingrpik, I base most of my personal theory on this around the harm principal. So long as no others or their property are hurt by your actions (e.g. owning a landmine, or even mining your own personal property) then I have no problem with what you, as an adult or emancipated minor, do personally. I apply this evenly, just for the record which is to mean that I have just as much of a personal problem with such things as anti-sodomy laws as I do with weapon regulation. What you (and other who consent) do is fine with me, so long as you leave me and others out of it.

PS Bossy,
You forgot about select-fire. :-D

[tucsonlib]

11. Fair Enough

But do you really want your neighbor to own land mines? When the paperboy crosses his lawn and gets blown to smithereens, do you really think your neighbor should bear no responsibility? When you see your neighbor unloading a surface-to-air missile from his pickup, and he tells you it's for self-defense, are you going to take his word for it?
And although I applaud your opposition to anti-sodomy laws, the comparison doesn't hold up. Sodomy doesn't carry the risk of inflicting death or dismemberment. (At least, if you're doing it right.)

[Irreverend IX]

16. Remember, it already is legal to own that stuff...

Most of the things you've listed are considered "destructive devices" by the law, and to own destructive devices you need a special license and you pay a $200 tax for each one you buy. The prices for high-explosive weapons are in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some missiles are even in the millions. Even if licenses weren't required, the price would make it prohibitive for criminals to buy those things. And why would criminals want them anyway? Crime is a business like any other, and I'm hard-pressed to see how a crook could use a SAM to make money.

As for the land mines and paper boy thing, it's already illegal to set up traps on your property. Mining your property is no more legal than digging pitfalls with spikes. Just because you can own a weapon doesn't mean you can use it in any conceivable situation.

[gorfle]

25. Careful...

Most of the things you've listed are considered "destructive devices" by the law, and to own destructive devices you need a special license and you pay a $200 tax for each one you buy. The prices for high-explosive weapons are in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some missiles are even in the millions. Even if licenses weren't required, the price would make it prohibitive for criminals to buy those things. And why would criminals want them anyway? Crime is a business like any other, and I'm hard-pressed to see how a crook could use a SAM to make money.

You are making the case for the anti-gun folks.

The logic goes like this: If these devices are already legal to own provided you fill out all the paperwork and pay your fee, then why shouldn't firearms be the same way? Since destructive devices are hardly ever used in crime, the paperwork and fees must deter crime, right? Why not treat firearms the same way?

[SteveM]

17. We 2A advocates are often accused of paranoia, in spite of eight hours-a-night...

But it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass. Have you actually seen this? My goodness. BTW, I had an uncle who ringed his little frame house in post-War Tampa with 500 lb bombs, fins up & nose-in-the-sand and painted in very, very random colors. O-o-o-o-o.

And you compare your vision with sodomy laws.

[tucsonlib]

20. Follow the Thread

"And you compare your vision with sodomy laws."
I wasn't the one making that comparison.
"it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass."
No, just a warranted astonishment that anyone would claim owning such weapons was an inalienable "right".

[SteveM]

22. I stand corrected. But have you seen those SAMs and Claymores?

[iverglas]

19. what????

If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, you are simply informing those in the theater as to the situation. If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus, well then I'd have a severe problem with your actions.

Do you not know your Bill of Rights -- ALL OF IT -- by heart???

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And you have a problem with people shouting "fire" when there is no fire?? Surely you don't think there should, like, be LAWS against doing that!!!1!1!!

Whither FREEDOM OF SPEECH??

[gorfle]

26. Small arms vs. surface-to-air missiles...

or nuclear weapons, or whatever.

This is a common anti-firearm argument. "Well, if we have the right to own firearms, why not nuclear weapons?"

In order to answer this question one must have some knowledge of the second amendment and the intent behind it.

The intent of the second amendment was to equip the civil population with the same small arms that the infantry of the day would carry. This would make the civil population equipped as an effective fighting force of infantry, and likewise be able to repel similar forces.

While the founding fathers could not foresee all the advancements in modern military arms, it is fairly well accepted that the founding fathers intended for the people to be armed with such arms as would be necessary to secure their own freedom from oppression both without and within.

Modern small arms fill this requirement easily. There is no need to increase the scope of the definition of arms to include surface-to-air missiles, explosives, artillery, or nuclear weapons.

This is not to say that no weapon more advanced that modern projectile weapons will ever be needed to meet that requirement. For example, if "ray guns" become the next standard small arm for infantry troops than I would expect this weapon to be allowed for standard civilian ownership as well.

[Beregond2]

12. ...

The logical corollary of this arguement is: if the people are sovereign, then they also have the right to restrict their own use of arms.

[jody]

13. Another view involves the belief that each individual has natural rights, see

Natural Right and also Inalienable Right

PA declared in its constitution, A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776:

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

And

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

VT used the same language in its constitution of 1777.

You might wish to look at the legal definitions of:
Natural Rights
Inherent Right
Inalienable Right

[jmg257]

14. Common consent of the governed allows them to do what they want. Power & rights can be surrendered

and/or designated, for the good of the whole society. Just how the "consent" of the governed is determined is one question; HOW MUCH natural liberty should be surrendered is another.

Brutus 2
Yates

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc."


There are many things we granted our governments alone the power to do - there is such a list in the Constitution - collecting taxes, passing/deciding/prosecuting laws, & raising Armies and Navies come to mind. It would seem fine to also designate (surrender) to the government the exclusive right to arms. Would it be smart? No. And so THAT right, along with a few precious others, was explicitly secured for the people.

Edit: re-reading your OP, I am not sure whether you are making the point about the "existence" of the right to arms, or the "ability" to have that power restricted only to gov't. Hmmm... OK, so anyway - the right exists, there is NO doubt about that. There is also NO doubt it was secured for the people in the Constitution. What happens "next" though is again up to the consent of the governed (currently decided and excuted according to the Constitution) on whether that security is maintained or if the designation of power is modifed.

[jody]

15. Inalienable rights cannot be "surrendered and/or designated, for the good of the whole society."

That is the only protection a minority has in a democracy against the tyranny of a simple majority, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1.

[SteveM]

18. And I say as Obama after downing a couple: "This is true."

[iiibbb]

23. Overly complicated

I don't fault your logic, but your reasoning makes it seem like you're trying to reach, when really you don't need to reach at all.

The bill of rights are the rights of "The people", the citizens. It doesn't define the rights of the states. These rights existed before the government even came into being.

People have a fundamental right to protect themselves... period.

Now, some will try to draw me into the argument that this must mean the public can own mortars and bazookas and nuclear bombs... but that is a hyperbolic argument. If I agree we don't have rights to nuclear bombs, that does not mean I also agree we don't have rights to handguns.

Here's a "reasonable" line, the public should have access to arms no worse than a police officer (e.g. handguns, shotguns, semi-auto rifles), and that the public have access to hunting equipment that allow for as humane a way to kill the animal as possible (i.e. high-powered rifles).

I think these arms are perfectly capable of allowing the general public to overthrow a hypothesized despotic gov't if the need really should arise.

[Callisto32]

27. Responses

Between work and school, it is usually several days until I have ample time for things like internet forum posting, so sorry if it seems like I dropped this and then turned tail.

Anyway,

21. Hmm. I WAS being constructive. Lobbying for gun proliferation is not what I
call constructive use of ones time.
If all you have to do is look for reasons why people should owns guns, you need to do a serious reality check.

R: Lobbying for civil rights, such as that of access to the best tools for one's own defense and the defense of others in the event of violent attack is something that I certainly would call a constructive use of my time. This point of view applies to many, many more things in my mind than just weapons. That so long as a person does not harm others or their private property, I have no problem with doing something. In fact, even if you DO harm something or someone else's private property I am okay with whatever, so long as that person has consented to whatever you are doing. Like I said before, if you want to commit sodomy and you have a person who wants to be sodomized, go right ahead. If you want to cut your own finger off, go ahead. If that guy down the street wants you to cut HIS finger off; even though you are harming him, he has consented, so I would have no problem with it. If someone wants to be killed, well they essentially wish to commit suicide. This is also something that I have no (political) problem with them doing, it should certainly not be against the law. Now I know that this seems morbid, but I am simply using extreme examples to make my point. Now, my tone about such topics may be different, so I feel it only fair to tell the readers that I am a fairly conservative Christian by faith and I have many things which I oppose ethically, but not politically.

In the end, for me, it is a matter of consistency. I want everyone, no matter what they think/feel/believe et cetera to have the greatest amount of personal freedom possible.


fingrpik (86 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Fair Enough

Edited on Mon Apr-07-08 04:35 AM by fingrpik
But do you really want your neighbor to own land mines? When the paperboy crosses his lawn and gets blown to smithereens, do you really think your neighbor should bear no responsibility? When you see your neighbor unloading a surface-to-air missile from his pickup, and he tells you it's for self-defense, are you going to take his word for it?
And although I applaud your opposition to anti-sodomy laws, the comparison doesn't hold up. Sodomy doesn't carry the risk of inflicting death or dismemberment. (At least, if you're doing it right.)


R: What seems to be at the core of your objection here is that you think I wish to absolve those with dangerous things from personal responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am arguing for is individual rights, and while people generally like to ignore this part, with rights come responsibilities. The more gravity involved with the right the greater the responsibility involved in the exercise thereof. What I would like more than anything would be to see the individuals who make up American society finally stand up and start taking responsibility for their actions and decisions, and for their own personal safety and general well-being without trying to blame all of the failures and negative happenings on everything but themselves.



SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. We 2A advocates are often accused of paranoia, in spite of eight hours-a-night...

But it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass. Have you actually seen this? My goodness. BTW, I had an uncle who ringed his little frame house in post-War Tampa with 500 lb bombs, fins up & nose-in-the-sand and painted in very, very random colors. O-o-o-o-o.

And you compare your vision with sodomy laws.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

fingrpik (90 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Follow the Thread

"And you compare your vision with sodomy laws."
I wasn't the one making that comparison.
"it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass."
No, just a warranted astonishment that anyone would claim owning such weapons was an inalienable "right".

R: Okay, the sodomy thing...That was just my attempt to illustrate that this is, for me, a civil rights thing and that I no more approve of laws limiting such things as private sexual behavior than I do those laws limiting the ownership of arms.



iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. what????



If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, you are simply informing those in the theater as to the situation. If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus, well then I'd have a severe problem with your actions.

Do you not know your Bill of Rights -- ALL OF IT -- by heart???

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And you have a problem with people shouting "fire" when there is no fire?? Surely you don't think there should, like, be LAWS against doing that!!!1!1!!

Whither FREEDOM OF SPEECH??



R: Please note "If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus...." This means (in a nicer way) "with criminal intent to cause a public disturbance." You know that, you are reaching for straws. If I bear arms in defense of myself and others from violent attack fine and do so, fine. If I bear arms with the intent of causing harm, not fine. Please not the inclusion of "and do so" in the above statements before responding. Fin




gorfle (631 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Small arms vs. surface-to-air missiles...

or nuclear weapons, or whatever.

This is a common anti-firearm argument. "Well, if we have the right to own firearms, why not nuclear weapons?"

In order to answer this question one must have some knowledge of the second amendment and the intent behind it.

The intent of the second amendment was to equip the civil population with the same small arms that the infantry of the day would carry. This would make the civil population equipped as an effective fighting force of infantry, and likewise be able to repel similar forces.

While the founding fathers could not foresee all the advancements in modern military arms, it is fairly well accepted that the founding fathers intended for the people to be armed with such arms as would be necessary to secure their own freedom from oppression both without and within.

Modern small arms fill this requirement easily. There is no need to increase the scope of the definition of arms to include surface-to-air missiles, explosives, artillery, or nuclear weapons.

This is not to say that no weapon more advanced that modern projectile weapons will ever be needed to meet that requirement. For example, if "ray guns" become the next standard small arm for infantry troops than I would expect this weapon to be allowed for standard civilian ownership as well.

R: I think this is a well-thought-out response to the argument. However, I politely disagree. By this argument, explosives, artillery pieces et cetera, being an integral part of modern warfare often carried or transported and maintained by small groups of people (admittedly: nukes, not so much unless you count DU rounds.) are therefore deserving of the same protection as small arms.





Beregond2 (674 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. ...

The logical corollary of this arguement is: if the people are sovereign, then they also have the right to restrict their own use of arms.

R: The purpose of the original post was to respond to those who would assert that there just flat-out is no right to have arms. While I have not seen such here (at least explicitly) the post was intended to check the veracity of the argument, as is stated in the original post.




jmg257


...There are many things we granted our governments alone the power to do - there is such a list in the Constitution - collecting taxes, passing/deciding/prosecuting laws, & raising Armies and Navies come to mind. It would seem fine to also designate (surrender) to the government the exclusive right to arms. Would it be smart? No. And so THAT right, along with a few precious others, was explicitly secured for the people.

Edit: re-reading your OP, I am not sure whether you are making the point about the "existence" of the right to arms, or the "ability" to have that power restricted only to gov't. Hmmm... OK, so anyway - the right exists, there is NO doubt about that. There is also NO doubt it was secured for the people in the Constitution. What happens "next" though is again up to the consent of the governed (currently decided and excuted according to the Constitution) on whether that security is maintained or if the designation of power is modifed.

R: I would disagree with your first statement there. Private militia groups are, as far as I am aware, not illegal. Blackwater immediately comes to the fore of my mind. As far as your edit, yes, you got it. Please see the response immediately above.




jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Inalienable rights cannot be "surrendered and/or designated, for the good of the whole society."

That is the only protection a minority has in a democracy against the tyranny of a simple majority, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1.


R: Wrong, technically. That is the only protection that is to be had in a REPUBLIC. In a true democracy fifty-percent-plus-one...well the other forty-nine-minus-one are screwed. This is not meant to be an attack, simply to point out the important difference between a democracy and a republic.



iiibbb (45 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
23. Overly complicated

I don't fault your logic, but your reasoning makes it seem like you're trying to reach, when really you don't need to reach at all.

The bill of rights are the rights of "The people", the citizens. It doesn't define the rights of the states. These rights existed before the government even came into being.

People have a fundamental right to protect themselves... period.

Now, some will try to draw me into the argument that this must mean the public can own mortars and bazookas and nuclear bombs... but that is a hyperbolic argument. If I agree we don't have rights to nuclear bombs, that does not mean I also agree we don't have rights to handguns.

Here's a "reasonable" line, the public should have access to arms no worse than a police officer (e.g. handguns, shotguns, semi-auto rifles), and that the public have access to hunting equipment that allow for as humane a way to kill the animal as possible (i.e. high-powered rifles).

I think these arms are perfectly capable of allowing the general public to overthrow a hypothesized despotic gov't if the need really should arise.

R: I agree with you on all counts except that we must limit the rights of people to own certain weapons (at least, that is what I think you are saying here, please let me know if I am wrong). I place emphasis upon the people who own the arms and the use thereof by those people without regard to the nature of the arm itself. You may choose to do otherwise, of course. Am I reaching when I shouldn't have to? Absolutely, but this is an argument intended to counter the assertion that no actual right to bear arms exists.


In all, I am happy this got as much of a response as it did, and that most of the posts were not of the "oh ho, gotcha!" type. Though those can be fun too. :D

[iverglas]

28. So here's how an internet discussion board works

To start with, it's easier if you don't use the "view all" option. That way you can focus on the post you wish to respond to, and don't run the risk of clicking randomly on the wrong "reply" link and having your post end up somewhere unrelated.

Click on each post that you want to read in whatever sequence you like.

If you want to respond to something a particular person has said, click on the "reply" link in that person's post. Compose your reply, preview it and check that it makes sense, and post it. Move on to the next post you wish to consider.

That way, the person to whom you are replying will actually have a good chance of seeing your reply. This is facilitated by the "my posts" page, which shows when replies are posted to a message one has posted one's self.

It's also wise to use some method of distinguishing between what you are quoting and replying to and what you are saying yourself. Quotation marks are a minimum. Some kind of formatting is more helpful. Myself, I use italics when quoting myself, bold when quoting the person to whom I am replying to, and indentation when quoting from a third party/source.

Like this, where you replace the pointy brackets with square brackets:

<i>makes italicized text</i>
<b>makes boldfaced text</b>
<u>makes underlined text</u>
<blockquote>makes indented text</blockquote>

So.

Please note "If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus...." This means (in a nicer way) "with criminal intent to cause a public disturbance." You know that, you are reaching for straws. If I bear arms in defense of myself and others from violent attack fine and do so, fine. If I bear arms with the intent of causing harm, not fine. Please not the inclusion of "and do so" in the above statements before responding.

This is called petitio principii, or arguing in a circle, or begging the question.

"Criminal intent" is defined by a law: something is only "criminal" if a law says it is.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

See your problem?

How do I know what your intent is when you "bear arms", by the way?

[Callisto32]

29. I still use a manual typewriter...

Pardon me if I don't know the ins and outs of the forum system. If you can't be bothered to dig through my responses when I do them in bulk, well that is your problem. Frankly, I think my form is fairly simple to read and understand with responses clearly denoted by "R:" and ample line breaks between new posts/responses.


"Please note "If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus...." This means (in a nicer way) "with criminal intent to cause a public disturbance." You know that, you are reaching for straws. If I bear arms in defense of myself and others from violent attack fine and do so, fine. If I bear arms with the intent of causing harm, not fine. Please not the inclusion of "and do so" in the above statements before responding."

-ME

"This is called petitio principii, or arguing in a circle, or begging the question."
-iverglas

R: How on EARTH is this begging the question? That would require me to assume to be true what I intend to prove....I do no such thing here. I simply state my point of view on the subject.

Is my initial argument somewhat circular? I guess if you count the fact that having all powers is part of being the sovereign, then yes it is. This is a pitfall of the deductive form, get used to it. Just being circular does not make an argument invalid on the grounds of begging the question. Though all arguments that beg the question are circular.




"Criminal intent" is defined by a law: something is only "criminal" if a law says it is.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

See your problem?

How do I know what your intent is when you "bear arms", by the way?

-iverglas

R: The example of yelling "fire" does NOT abridge freedom of speech. The laws created do not have to abridge freedom of speech to prevent people from taking such actions, you simply require laws which make it illegal to cause harm to others. Whether you lay a trap for me in hopes that I will fall into it, or yell fire in a crowded theater in the hopes that I will be trampled in the ensuing stampede, you have done the SAME thing, the only laws required are those that make it illegal to assault or attempt to murder someone. The method by which these attacks are carried out is immaterial. If you shoot at me and miss, it is attempted murder, if you yell fire in an attempt to kill someone and it fails, attempted murder. Same thing, different means. This is what I am talking about. You can say whatevertheheck you want, so long as all that happens is that you say it and I hear it, and there is no ill intent resulting in actual damage to another person or that person's property. Golly, if it's in a public place I'll even allow you to say things generally considered obscene. I have no right to not be offended.

You cannot know my intent when I bear arms, which is exactly you cannot be allowed to infringe upon my ability to do so preemptively. Besides, intent alone does not make for a crime, however it is an important part of an act being criminal. Example: I want to drive my car through my neighbor's fence because I do not like him. No crime, presuming I do not actually act upon my desire. My car's parking pawl/break fails and it rolls down the hill and hits my neighbors fence. No crime. Perhaps a tort case if I don't pay for repairs and the neighbor wants to make a deal about it. I want to harm my neighbor's property, and do so... NOW we have a crime. Get it?

Please note that the above paragraph does not necessarily reflect, the actual way of the world, but rather how I would expect things to be in a true "justice" system.

[iiibbb]

30. re-Response

<b>R: I agree with you on all counts except that we must limit the rights of people to own certain weapons (at least, that is what I think you are saying here, please let me know if I am wrong). I place emphasis upon the people who own the arms and the use thereof by those people without regard to the nature of the arm itself. You may choose to do otherwise, of course. Am I reaching when I shouldn't have to? Absolutely, but this is an argument intended to counter the assertion that no actual right to bear arms exists.</b>

I'm not arguing that we <u>must</u> limit certain weapons.

I might entertain conversations on what types of weapons fulfill the spirit of the 2nd amendment (e.g. defense of ourselves and our country, sustenance). The problem is that people spend too much time at the extremes (e.g. muskets, nuclear bombs).

I would argue that the line exists somewhere between a beat cop and an infantryman. Should we have machine guns, .50 BMG, etc? That is where the entertaining debate lies. Unfortunately it's usually too hard to have a sane conversation about that because the subject has been rubbed so raw. There is also the problem that our legislators are incapable of focusing on anything but cosmetic features, and those at the helm of the gun-control movement have zero credibility.

[Callisto32]

31. Sorry If I Jumped the Gun

iiibbb,

Sorry if your comment got swept up in my broad strokes there. I was in somewhat of a defensive mindset, as seems to happen on these boards. Please accept my apologies for misconstruing your statement. Additionally, I believe your last statement immediately above really hits the mark. As for a conversation about where the line should be drawn, I am sure you can figure out what MY stance would be, but it could still be interesting to see where people want to draw the line and why. (Mostly I am interested in the why part.)


Edit: Oy, just saw the subject line...no pun intended, honest.