Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?
shrox wrote:
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
Jacoby wrote:
No. The constitution is based on natural rights. The right to life and the right to defend it is an natural right and the right to bear arms is an integral part of that and that is why it was specifically enumerated. Our constitution does not grant rights, it protects our natural rights. Self defense, hunting, and defense against tyranny are all well within our natural rights. Just because something isn't enumerated in the constitution does not mean it doesn't exist, our constitution is actually pretty clear about that. It is a restriction on what our government can do, not a restriction on what the people can do.
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.
0_equals_true wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No. The constitution is based on natural rights. The right to life and the right to defend it is an natural right and the right to bear arms is an integral part of that and that is why it was specifically enumerated. Our constitution does not grant rights, it protects our natural rights. Self defense, hunting, and defense against tyranny are all well within our natural rights. Just because something isn't enumerated in the constitution does not mean it doesn't exist, our constitution is actually pretty clear about that. It is a restriction on what our government can do, not a restriction on what the people can do.
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.
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
shrox wrote:
BlueAbyss wrote:
PM wrote:
Did prohibition work? No.
Is the drug war working? No.
So.......
Exactly, and yet lots of tax dollars were and are spent on those efforts, to no avail. Lots of people have been imprisoned who were harming no one but themselves.Is the drug war working? No.
So.......
Prohibition was to keep people from harming themselves as it were.
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
Very different. Both a symptom of how most upright mammals can't control themselves.
Actually most can.
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....
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.
BlueAbyss wrote:
shrox wrote:
BlueAbyss wrote:
PM wrote:
Did prohibition work? No.
Is the drug war working? No.
So.......
Exactly, and yet lots of tax dollars were and are spent on those efforts, to no avail. Lots of people have been imprisoned who were harming no one but themselves.Is the drug war working? No.
So.......
Prohibition was to keep people from harming themselves as it were.
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
Very different. Both a symptom of how most upright mammals can't control themselves.
Actually most can.
You're right. I should have said significant number.
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....
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.
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?
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....
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.
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....
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
shrox wrote:
In effect, a gun ban enables hurting of others.
I don't expect you to be able to understand that, though...
Quote:
A gun ban is to keep people from hurting others.
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.
The fact that you started with guns says a lot.....
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.
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....
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Seabass wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
No. The constitution is based on natural rights. The right to life and the right to defend it is an natural right and the right to bear arms is an integral part of that and that is why it was specifically enumerated. Our constitution does not grant rights, it protects our natural rights. Self defense, hunting, and defense against tyranny are all well within our natural rights. Just because something isn't enumerated in the constitution does not mean it doesn't exist, our constitution is actually pretty clear about that. It is a restriction on what our government can do, not a restriction on what the people can do.
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.
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.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
why do some games use 10 and 20 when 1 and 2 would work? |
15 Jun 2025, 10:10 pm |
10 Writing Niches that actually work |
03 Jul 2025, 10:42 am |
What's something good to listen to at work? |
05 Jun 2025, 4:15 pm |
Had a bad meltdown at work a couple days ago |
11 Jun 2025, 12:47 am |