Gun Crime

[David Floyd]

Machine guns should be - and Constitutionally are - totally legal.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Loinburger -- be careful not to use a strawman argument.

It isn't a bloody strawman argument, it's a legitimate question. Why outlaw machine guns and not pistols, if the intent of gun control laws are to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons?

[Tom201]

Freedom cose of guns?

If u want to see important freedom rights, compare what the Netherlands have, to what the US have, and the other way round.

The only one in favor of the US is the right to bear guns.
While the Netherlands have a lot of Freedom rights superior to the ones in the USA.

I dont see why the right to bear guns is any good. It doesnt prevent crime, it rather produces more of it. When everyone is armed its wise for the criminal to be more though with the violence he uses. Resulting in bigger crimes, which would be smaller ones without this right.
The fear to get shoot, when in the wrong neighbourhood, is not Freedom.

The Netherlands with its set of Freedom rights are a much safer place than the US is with theirs.

For more Freedom and security in America adopt Holland laws and get rid of your Firearms.

[chequita guevara]

It's not strawman, Mr. Fun, it's reducto ad absurdum, which is perfectly legit.

[MrFun]

So then let me reiterate on my question then.

The purpose of citizens to have the right to bear arms is so that they can contribute to the defense of their country against an intruder.

If we give citizens the right to own nuclear weapons, this would make citizens more capable of contributing to the nation's defense.

[David Floyd]

If we give citizens the right...

See, right there is most of y'all's problem You people seem to think that rights can be granted or given. You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them. Gun control is obviously the latter option, because 2nd Amendment aside, guns are private property, which is a fundamental human right.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


See, right there is most of y'all's problem You people seem to think that rights can be granted or given. You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them. Gun control is obviously the latter option, because 2nd Amendment aside, guns are private property, which is a fundamental human right.

Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??

If so, then nuclear weapons are private property, and that means that citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons.

[chequita guevara]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themselves from each other, nor to protect themselves from the government, but rather, to protect their country from foreign agressors. Our founding father's were extremely wary of a standing military, as it could be used to set up a tyranny, so we set up as small a military as we could. Instead, in times of need, we would rely on the body politic to maintain their own weapons for the purpose of forming a civilian militia in times of need.

Since we now have a standing military, the 2nd Amernendment is no longer needed.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the military and keep the 2nd Amemndment. Sure, we couldn't kick the world's *ss, but that's a good thing.

[David Floyd]

Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??

Eh?

The prupose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themsevles from each other, nor to protect tehmselves from the government,

Not according to many statements by the Founders, to which Wraith probably has better access than I.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the military and keep the 2nd Amemndment. Sure, we couldn't kick the world's *ss, but that's a good thing.

I agree.

[Wraith]

--"I think that they are going to have to tackle the issue at least somewhat"

I hope so. However, Emerson has already been pretty much permanently slow-tracked, so I wouldn't count on seeing anything soon.

--"Question for the floor:"

Is there anyone in particular you're addressing this to? I've always argued that there's no reason to restrict the machine guns and so on, so I can't really address it.

--"if the intent of gun control laws are to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons?"

Why assume that's the actual intent? The Brady Bill went after a class of weapons that are almost never used in crimes (less than 1% of firearm related crimes). There's absolutely no reason to assume that it was for the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It was more likely because it was an easy political win, so Clinton could look tough on crime and appease some of the more radical in his party.

--"It doesnt prevent crime, it rather produces more of it"

Bah. This has already been addressed.

--"The purpose of citizens to have the right to bear arms"

That is one of the purposes, yes. It is not the only purpose.
In any case, yes, we should allow citizens, those who can afford to and want to, to own nukes. As I've said in the other thread (and many times before), there's no real reason to restrict ownership of a class of property based on the property rather than the owner.

--"Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??"

Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see where this came from.

--"The prupose of the 2nd Amendment is not for the people to protect themsevles from each other, nor to protect tehmselves from the government, but rather, to protect their country from foreign agressors."

It was all of the above, actually.
And, again, the right was not "granted" to the citizens, but acknowledge as existing.

Wraith
"Madness has no purpose, or reason...but it may have a goal."
-- Mr. Spock

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them.

Rights ARE what? Inherent in being human? How? Are they endowed by a creator? Are they coded in our genes? No.

We all recognize that a convicted criminal has much more limited rights. Children have less rights than adults. Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people. Thus, rights can be granted and rights can be taken away. Rights exist only if and when people claim they exist, and only when they enforce that claim. If, as a people, we agree that no one has a right to a machine gun, then you don't have a right to a machine gun. And you don't.

[Wraith]

--"Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people"

Damnit, do we have to do this again? The US was founded on the principle of natural origin, not social origin. I don't care what your personal opinions are, US law is not based on the social origin theory, so you cannot argue US law from it.

Wraith
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."
-- Justice Brewer ("State of Southern Caroline vs. US" - Majority Opinion)

[David Floyd]

Rights ARE what? Inherent in being human? How? Are they endowed by a creator? Are they coded in our genes? No.

We all recognize that a convicted criminal has much more limited rights. Children have less rights than adults. Therefore, rights are social constructs, agreements among people. Thus, rights can be granted and rights can be taken away. Rights exist only if and when people claim they exist, and only when they enforce that claim. If, as a people, we agree that no one has a right to a machine gun, then you don't have a right to a machine gun. And you don't.

I'll second what Wraith said, not to mention that you are opening the can of worms leading to you admitting the Holocaust was OK because of relativism and the fact that Germany decided Jews, Gypsies, etc, didn't have rights. Wanna go down that road?

[chequita guevara]

It doesn't matter that the US was founded on the principal of natural origin. Israel was founded on the principal that YHWH gave that land to the Jews for all time. We all know that's a crock of sh*t. So's natural origin.

Look, we can all agree that what happened during the Holocaust was absolute evil and horrible, because it happened during a period during which people agreeed that those rights were being violated. We accept, as a civilization, that what the Nazis did violated human rights. But if we lived 500 years ago, we wouldn't have batted an eye at the extermination of the Jews or Roma. We wouldn't even have considered that rights existed.

How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment discussion? Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed, but it reinterpreted by each generation. We, ultimately, decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Now, we currently have a court system filled with strict Constitutionalists. Eventually the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then again, and so on, as long as the United States exists.

[David Floyd]

Look, we can all agree that what happened during the Holocaust was absolute evil and horrible, because it happened during a period during which people agreeed that those rights were being violated. We accept, as a civilization, that what the Nazis did violated human rights. But if we lived 500 years ago, we wouldn't have batted an eye at the extermination of the Jews or Roma. We wouldn't even have considered that rights existed.

So now if the rest of the world thinks we should ban guns, we have to?

How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment discussion? Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed, but it reinterpreted by each generation. We, ultimately, decide what the 2nd Amendment means. Now, we currently have a court system filled with strict Constitutionalists. Eventually the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then again, and so on, as long as the United States exists.

Nothing in the Constitution implies that it can be redefined as times change - oh, wait, except for that little thing known as amending the Constitution. You wanna reinterpret or change the Constitution? Fine - amend it.