9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[David Floyd]

There is a small minority who dissent against laws against murder. Do they have the right to dissent?

Ah, but there's a difference. Killing someone hurts someone. Electing not to give money to a bum hurts no one. It doesn't hurt the bum, because he's no worse off than he was before.

In regards to the realism of my aspirations, of course it is impossible for a perfect, sinless society to ever emerge. However, it is quite possible for a society that has a greater sense of living for the betterment of their neighbor.

I agree, and I even agree that people should try to help others (though probably not at the expense of their own well being or that of their family). I don't agree that people should ever be forced to help others.

What is one of the two great commandments, aside from love God with all your heart? Love your neighbor as yourself. This is a universal truth, this is not the mere workings of mice or men.

Loving one's neighbor is a personal quality, one that cannot and should not be enforced. Further, loving one's neighbor is NOT a universal truth. Gravity is a universal truth. Loving one's neighbor is NOT, because not everyone loves their neibhbor.

But in any case, laws upholding individual freedom are more important than laws upholding Christianity or any other religion or moral system.

What Ayn Rand considers most important is nothing compared to what God considers even remotely important.

Who said anything about Ayn Rand? But in any case, what God considers important is an impossible expectation, in that he created us as imperfect beings. If he wanted us to uphold his commandments, he shouldn't have created sin or a sin nature.

Granted, he created a way out (seems like a lot of trouble, personally), but that in no way negates that fact that everyone must sin at least once in their life, according to the rules that God set up. With that in mind, passing laws against sins that hurt no one is absolutely ridiculous (such as gambling, prostitution, gun ownership, drugs, alcohol, etc.).

As I have stated in a previous discussion, God asks that we live for each other, rather than the individualism that Rand mandates.

Then quite frankly, God shouldn't have created a sin nature. God can and does ask that we do our best, but he can't ask us to be perfect, because of how he created us.

There is no need for a theocratic regime, because what I propose offers true freedom.

You have a funny definition of freedom. Wanna pull out a dictionary?

Once again David, I ask that you give up your philosophy, and I promise that it will be well worth it.

No it won't. What you are essentially asking me to do is advocate a system of personal morals, and try to force that system on everyone else, even if they don't believe in God. I believe God exists, but that's irrelevant - if someone else doesn't believe that, who am I to force them to believe God exists or to live by his laws? God doesn't even advocate that, otherwise he would have done it. He did not, though, and that is clear in that we all have free will.

And don't make the "universal truth" argument. Saying that everyone has to live by gravity whether or not they believe in it has nothing to do with the topic. Gravity is self evident - it can be proven by the mere act of jumping. God is not self evident without relying on preconceptions, beliefs, or assumptions. You might argue that God is evident to all those who seek him (which still isn't quite logical, but we don't have to go there if you don't want to), but that by definition is not an example of self evidence.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like the original post said, different circuit decisions, the SCOTUS will probably affirm the 5th Circuits decision and reject the 9th Circuit's decision . . .

You're undoubtably right again, Imran. Too bad. It would have been nice to see the U.S. finally leave the 19th Century behind.

[David Floyd]

Yes, we can get rid of that nasty 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as well. Talk about living in the 19th Century - sheesh

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would have been nice to see the U.S. finally leave the 19th Century behind.

As Floyd said, those pesky 19th Century Amendments .

There is a reason that individual gun ownership was protected.

[Sikander]

Sikander to the 9th Circuit:

C'mon down to the 5th Circuit and say that!

[cia]

Guns are simply a convenient reboot mechanism for an out-of-control government.
People were killing people quite aptly long before guns were even imagined.

[Ben Kenobi]

"he shouldn't have created sin or a sin nature."
-David Floyd

The question remains- did God create a 'sin' nature?
Read Genesis- man did not start out with a sinful nature although he was given freedom to choose whether or not to obey.

Eve sinned by tempting Adam, Adam sinned by accepting. Not only were they cast out but everyone else after them has inherited a sinful nature.

Agreed- no one should be forced to worship, or to follow any commandment that they think is useless or stupid. True worship cannot be compelled. State/ Church should remain separate until the Second Coming when this world perishes. Otherwise, there is too much danger of coercion from even a 'Christian' state.

Finally are there any sins that do not hurt someone?
Alcohol, gambling, and drugs can all be taken to excess which most certainly hurts the people involved, and their families. As for prostitution, not all prostitutes are 'voluntary' with many working to pay off drug debts or pimps. Are they not hurt by prostitution?

Bringing back to the original thread- where do guns fit in?

[Timexwatch]

The bigger question is whether Jesus would've owned a .22 or a shotgun

[Dis]

too late. I already have them

[Zero]

same here

[David Floyd]

The question remains- did God create a 'sin' nature?
Read Genesis- man did not start out with a sinful nature although he was given freedom to choose whether or not to obey.

Eve sinned by tempting Adam, Adam sinned by accepting. Not only were they cast out but everyone else after them has inherited a sinful nature.

OK, so God created the sin nature. Adam and Eve didn't create a sin nature, they didn't have the power to. Likewise, the serpent didn't create anything of the sort. Only God had the power to create a sin nature and ensure that we all inherited it.

Further, a real simple way out of the problem would be not to create sin

Finally are there any sins that do not hurt someone?

I don't think the most fundamentalist right-wing Christian alive today - say, Jerry Falwell - can claim that lusting after a hot girl on the street when you are unmarried, out of a relationship, and not acting on the impulse is in any way harmful, if you want to take it to an extreme (which you apparently do, judging from your statements below).

Alcohol, gambling, and drugs can all be taken to excess which most certainly hurts the people involved, and their families.

First of all, the act of drinking a beer, betting on a horse race, or smoking marijuana don't harm anyone, even yourself. Drinking a whole bottle of Jack Daniels is harmful to yourself, as is smoking crack. But when I say "hurts no one", I mean "hurts no one other than possibly yourself" - you should be free to do whatever you want to yourself, because you're not hurting anyone else.

As to your statement that these acts hurt families, again, this is only true if taken to excess. Drinking a beer never hurt a family, nor did betting on horses, nor did smoking pot.

Alcoholism, drug abuse, and compulsive gambling might "hurt" families in the sense that it deprives them of a responsible father/mother figure, but the remaining family members always have the option to move on. Ultimately, though, none of these actions physically hurt anyone else, which is the point. If we start going down the road of criminalizing stuff that hurts people emotionally or "tears apart families", nothing will be legal anymore.

As for prostitution, not all prostitutes are 'voluntary' with many working to pay off drug debts or pimps. Are they not hurt by prostitution?

Sure, but that's already illegal. People being forced to pick cotton in the fields certainly hurt them - blacks were hurt by the system of slavery. But all that means is that we got rid of slavery - we didn't criminalize cotton. Punish the crime, not the act - consensual sex doesn't hurt anyone.

[Sandman]

Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
See, the right to own firearms is collective, not individual.

The Fifth Circuit analysis of source documents and evidence of the intent behind the Second Amendment is the most thorough on the subject. Until reading Emerson and the cited source documents, I held the collective right viewpoint, but I was convinced otherwise by the thorougness and extent of the analysis in Emerson.

SCOTUS may duck this one - Second Amendment cases aren't exactly real popular anyway. Since there's no factual similarity in the cases and the specific laws being challenged are quite different, there's not likely to be any perceived urgency for SCOTUS to act to resolve these differing interpretations. Assault weapon bans have been disposed of under different grounds than straight "right to own" interpretation, so there's plenty of rationale for SCOTUS to ignore this case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Blah, blah, blah...seriously, pointless topic because no one will ever budge anyone else on the issue, and it's been hammered to death. I'll simply point out that gun ownership is a property right and should never be infringed in any way, someone like Dr. Strangelove will point out homicide rates, I'll tell him that the number of deaths are meaningless to me and an emotional argument that has no logical bearing on the issue, and round and round it goes.

My enriched uranium and lithium deuteride supply are also "property rights" then, I suppose? And my transfer of those materials to the local al Qaeda cell is also a property right, since it simply involves transfer of property from one private individual to another? :rolleys:

The whole concept of "rights" is an artifical man-made construct in the first place. There are no absolute rights.

[D@VE]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
The bigger question is whether Jesus would've owned a .22 or a shotgun

If he could have seen into the future to see what the world is like today, he would have bought the first one he saw and shot himself.

I don't know why anyone would let themselves be crucified in order to save mankind.