Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Post Reply New Topic

shrox wrote:

In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.

I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...

I really don't think you understand my point. I did not say I want a gun ban, what I am doing is exploring options. I often start from the end of the maze to solve it. I am starting from a gun ban point, and I now have many other options to explore.

There is a considerable difference between a gun and an addictive, enjoyable substance like a drug. I would compare a ban on guns, leaving aside any affects of gun related crimes that existed anyway, to a ban on fishing rods, or, more extreme, explosives.

That is a poor argument, and not really true. Raptor got it right. The 2nd Amendment does not itself grant these things. Your interpretation is spurious. Now there is other laws that do much of that but, we are talking about 2nd Amendment, which is often cited.

Law does work like that, you cannot pin vague concepts on a specific piece of Law. Of course fundamental rights are usually instilled in a Constitution. However you have to state those fundamental rights, then there is a process of refinement over the years. You can't expect people to guess what "natural rights" mean, you wouldn't be able to be uphold this, unless there was legal principle and testing through precedent. You can't do that with obscure and vague concept, that you say are implied but not stated.

I just highlighted that 2nd Amendment was specifically stuff like tyranny, and thing that could effect the security of the state such as Canada invading. The 2nd Amendment does not mention anything more than that. This is modern English and they had vocabulary to describe those things.

If you cite an Amendment, rather than something else you expect it to be about that Amendment. Now you may be able include a few other thing that you can put under security of the state, but you are wrong when you, say it is to do with all of those 'natural rights' mentioned. The English is clear enough.

The forefathers were a considered bunch, they realized that for instance direct democracy wouldn't work. They drew up the Constitution on balance, they never advocated free for all on anything. They took the measured the approach, and considered the consequences as best they could. They wouldn't put something so vague and unsubstantiated it couldn't be tested.

In legal debate there are two positions on interpretation revisionists and non-revisionist literalistic. Some people wouldn't advocate revisionist approach to a set law (but advocate further amendments if necessary), but on off day will break their own rule to suit themselves. However under either approach what you said to is far too vague to pin to a single Amendment.

I actually find Jacoby's argument not to be poor, and find your post to be a bunch of fluff. Natural rights are the rights you find in the Declaration of Independence, you know, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Although there have been differing views on what makes up natural rights in the past, the idea of natural rights is pretty much set in stone by now. The Constitution revolves around the existence of natural rights.

The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....

Actually most can.

Wow, you remind me of how the auto industry reacted to the Tucker automobile. Installing seat belts would be to admit there was a risk the seat belt could avert.

Nothing else can spray death like a gun. Not a knife, not an axe, not a jackhammer or electric saw or even a car.

You're right. I should have said significant number.

Yes, you're right.
Guns are responsible for killings.
Mine are always trying escape to go reek havoc.
My carry gun always has to be forced back down into the holster because it's always trying to climb out and kill people.
Right now I can hear murmuring in the gun safe. OMG! They're conspiring another escape attempt!
What ever shall I do?

Perhaps it's your meds....

I don't do meds....

Wait a minute,

Is this about the number of people killed with guns, or about the number of people who apparently can't be responsible with a gun?

Good for you. That's certainly a mark in your favor.

Don't forget the beginning "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Also the 9th amendment makes note of our rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution and 10th amendment restricted to federal government's power to what is strictly enumerated in the constitution.

Raptor is right. Guns don't kill people, maniacs who allow people to own guns kill people.