The Glade 4.0

Again, arguing different things. "Natural" rights are a bizarre metaphysical claim that actually could only be claimed through a religious type of belief. The constitution does not provide natural rights. It provides legal rights.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well regardless, if you can't defend yourself, then you effectively have zero control over any of your other property, except perhaps by hiding or obfuscating it. Guns provide you with a modern means to defend yourself and your property. This is more important than the statistical chance that some moron will injure themselves with a gun.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

The gun "debate" in the USA is frustrating to watch because neither side argues in good faith.

The gun-control advocates simply make **** up -- they show gun crimes that are statistically irrelevant (like mass shootings) and then make false inferences (as if gun control would in any way prevent them) and then imply that anyone who disagrees is either a primitive barbarian or downright evil.

The gun-rights lobby acts as if their right to bear arms is somehow god-given and sacrosanct and overrides any of the concerns over gun violence (It does not. Your right to bear arms can be ammended away just like any other part of the constitution). Their arguments rarely have anything of substance and sound like the ravings of self-entitled pricks (See Charleton Heston.) This is sad, because if they'd actually make an effort, I'm pretty sure they usually have the facts on their side, here. They also refuse to give way on ANY reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. ("I believe a convicted murderer diagnosed with severe sociopathy should be able to go into a store and say 'I need to buy a rocket launcher to kill my wife,' and be issued one along with ammunition on the spot!") This seriously hurts their credibility.

Now that I've sufficiently pissed off both sides, continue.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

While your point is understood, the number of fatalities something causes isn't, by itself, a measure of national security threat. The Russian nuclear arsenal has never caused a single American death - that does not mean it is a zero threat.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Theoretically, yes it can. In practice, that's like amending away Freedom of Speech, so when the gun-rights lobby acts as if it's god-given they're on very firm grond since even for nonreligious folks, freedom of speech is a fundamental human, prepolitical right and since the 2nd amendment is also in the BOR, treating it as if its different from the OTHER amendments is at best special pleading fallacy.

The gun control lobby is still trying to argue that, for some reason, gun ownership and possession isn't an individual right despite the history of the BOR and the Court decisions to date. Were they to give that up and instead accept that things like training, education, and enforcement of proper carry and use laws are not "infringements" and perfectly do-able when they negotiate in good faith, they';d get more traction.

But they will not because eliminating guns is a sacred cow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And yet without even needing to amend the constitution, freedom of speech is legally limited. Shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, or suggest you want to assassinate a sitting president, for examples. Additionally, civil laws such as that of slander or libel limit free speech. None of these restrictions are found to violate your constitutional right to free speech.

Likewise, weapon ownership can be restricted as well. You already agree to that. To date, I believe only Elmarnieh on this board has supported the argument that nuclear weapons and anti-aircraft cannons should be allowed civilian ownership. Likewise, nobody's arguing that incarcerated felons should be allowed to carry guns in prison. So you already have accepted legal limitations on the second ammendment.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is largely irrelevant. Whether you believe the BOR details natural rights, or legal rights, by being in that list they are the most sancrosanct rights Americans enjoy. Treating the 2nd Amendment as easily-dispensed-with while the First as sacred is irratioonal as it gets.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That is the most difficult concept to explain to anyone who is of the, "zomg gunz!" mindset.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The framers of the Constitution clearly found the right to bear arms to be as important as the freedom of expression. Now I'm certain many libtards disagree with that, but fortunately none of them are founding countries. One of the reasons the United States has been so successful is because of the protection of liberties. The protection of rights, whether you think they are "fundamental" or not, is essential for an environment where people can conduct their affairs without large risks from the government or malevolent actors.

That may or may not be true, but all ideas need to be open to intellectually honest and critical debate. One of the worst things on both sides of any issue is the fact that there is no debate. Everything should be treated like science. Present a premise, find evidence, try to disprove it, get everyone else to try to disprove it, then if it holds up, use it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

In theory, that's great. In practice, only guns are subject to any debate at all among Constitutional rights. People may debate what freedom of speech consists of, or whats allowed under freedom of religion but there is not debate that they ARE good and proper rights.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's correct. In point of fact, gun rights are already limited. It's a quite logical limitation that, since the right to bear arms is individual, it pertains only to weapons that are individual in the first place, notwithstanding that private individuals may have owned cannon in 1787.

The problem arises from the idea put forth by the anti-gun lobby that the present state with those restrictions in place represents some sort of extreme, and that the NRA/gun lobby is being irrational by not compromising with such obvious restraints already in place. That might even be a reasonable argument, except that whatever new restrictions might suddenly appear would be quickly forgotten in the call for new "common-sense gun laws".

The use of the term "common-sense gun law" ought to be a clue - they're based on intuitive mass appeal, not anything that resembles research or abstract consideration.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Perhaps there should be. That type of debate reinforces the things that are true as much as it threatens things that are not. Maybe people would be reminded that free speech includes the right to say things that they find offensive, and not the right to muzzle speech that they do not like. They need to remember why it's wrong to blame cartoonists for getting shot because they blasphemed someone's prophet. Treating these things as mere pseudo-religious mantras doesn't do that.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Good luck sparking that debate in such a manner that does not amount to everyone arguing those rights pertain to things they like, and don't pertain to things they don't like.

Some forms of debate are not good because of how they will actually go in practice. With freedoms, its often better to leave them alone than debate them becuase it isn't theoretical abstraction that determines the end result, its politics. It may be stupid, bad or wrong, but that doesn't stop it from taking effect. If an idea being stupid, bad or wrong were an ironclad guarantee that a population would reject it we'd have avoided a lot of problems.

Also, this still does not get around the fundamental fact that the anti-gun lobby bases much of its position on special pleading regarding the 2nd amendment.

And no, getting rid of a lot of stupid people is not a solution either. Once those stupid people figure out you want to get rid of them, they will try to **** kill you, and they will probably succeed because they are not actually as dumb as the supposedly smart people think.

As for the Europeans, their gun laws are not actually the cause of any of their social tranquility, and they have yet to come up with a good excuse for their gun restrictions that doesn't amount to "we are paranoid about our fellow citizens" and throw back to the middle ages ideas of denying the peasents weapons lest they revolt.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're arguing against my wish that honest debate be applied to political issues by suggesting debate is bad because people don't debate honestly. I know they don't debate honestly -- that's what I'm complaining about! Their goal isn't about determining and implementing the plan that will result in the greatest benefit, but instead about pushing a partisan agenda.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I know that you're complaining about that. We all wish that honest debate would be applied to political issues; no one is arguing against wishing for that.

In the US and (generally) the rest of the western world, our systems are set up so that issues are resolved by debate and while the ideal of informed, honest debate is rarely met, the system at least makes it so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be dishonest or uninformed.

Once you start **** around with things like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the right to a speedy, public trial etc via the political process you are **** around with the system itself and the ability of everyone to be equally dishonest.

And you might lose that debate. People are very easy to convince that only hating hateful hatemongers would possibly say certain things and yes we should definitely ban such awful ideas that have no place in society today. It is very hard for people to understand that other intelligent, informed, educated folks may have ideas that are diametrically opposed to theirs; anyone that disagrees must obviously be a hateful hating hater or an idiot or some other form of terrible person who should feel terrible. Most everyone feels that THEIR view is the one that will "result in the greatest benefit" and everyone else is "pushing a partisan agenda".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Pragmatism usually leads to the conclusion that the species shouldn't be allowed to survive. I'll note you're within the species.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There's no pragmatism that can lead to that conclusion. That conclusion requires a subjective moral judgement that is at odds with our biological imperatives. Pragmatism can lead to some fairly unpleasant conclusions (although they'd be debatable -- we do not have clean data or particularly accurate cause-and-effect models for most complext ideas), but that's not one of them.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I was going to say this. Pragmatism leads to no particular end, as it has no ideological goal - its practical goal is simply "make life better for me and mine" - which doesn't even imply screwing anyone else over, since enlightened self-interest is a thing.

This, interestingly, is a side benefit of gun rights. We allow people like Elmo to have their guns and carry them around and feel like it gives them power and control while they wave their little signs about the Fed and angrily post on their internet and feel like they're taking a stand for something. That allows those of us that actually are allowed anywhere near to get on with the real business while the whackaloons keep themselves occupied with ideological toys.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The side benefit of free speech is it allows some people to feel better about themselves by belittling their imagined persona of others online.

Howabout that?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I recall you posting pictures of yourself at your silly little Fed demonstration and you've got 10 years of gun-wankery posting history, so there's nothing imaginary involved. Don't flatter yourself.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

this is where I continuously chime in with "if you expect freedom of privacy to extend to the modern technology: why is the second amendment not offered the same courtesy."

As far as how I view the only justification needed to uphold the 2nd amendment... it is something you said a while back Corolinth...

"Because: **** you, that's why"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Here's the thing: Logic is on the side of the pro-gun lobby. If I'm willing to shoot your ***, a little thing like the legality of having a gun will not deter me. Let's not pretend you can eliminate guns by banning them. You banned alcohol, and speakeasies become the norm through the 20s, creating massive organized crime families built on the proceeds of bootleg alcohol. You ban drugs, and suddenly drug lords field their own **** armies in central america. There's a little known fact that thinking criminals love the law, and the police. To them, the law exists to give them an advantage over people who are unwilling to break it. It is not said lightly that "if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns." You may make them a little more expensive, but not prohibitively so. In the end, someone that wants a gun will still get one, only now, they and those like them are the only ones who have guns, while law abiding citizens whom they prey on will not. There is simply no argument against this truth so obviously and evidently demonstrated by history. And that doesn't even touch on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which has nothing to do with self defense, and everything to do with preserving the ability of the common people to shoot their own government/law enforcement if they become too jackbooted and authoritarian.

So there's ample reason for the anti-gun lobby to avoid direct logical debate. What I don't get, is the fact that the debate from the pro-gun side basically does amount to "**** you, that's why!" -- only with a hillbilly twist to the accent and words used. There's no reason for gun-rights types to avoid debate, because it's impossible for them to lose here.

Nothing should be beyond questioning, because no legitimate truth can be negatively impacted by it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Anyone remember the days of Saturday Night Specials?! Heard that term the other day in reference to the early 70s, and it was funny to remember how big a thing that was at the time.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

The term is still used, to reference any inexpensive, low quality firearm.

They'll become more common with the advent of 3d printing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █