T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Indeed, some gun control will always be necessary.
- Status
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
I didn’t realize the mob was after you. Are you in the witness protection program? Oh,wait, don’t answer that!
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
This is a very strange deflection/non-sequitir. I get that you need to genuflect toward the free market at every opportunity, but now that you’ve done that, why not let the talking points go and actually address the content of my question: if one of the legitimate purposes of the 2A is to check possible government tyranny, then it makes sense that the citizens should have access to the same type of weapons as the state. After all, at the time of the founding, the musket owned by the individual citizen was more or less the same weapon governments issued to soldiers. Any merchant captain could mount cannons on his privately owned ship identical to the ones on warships. So why can’t private citizens have a submarine with nukes, or a fighter jet, or a battery of howitzers? I get that it’s expensive, but in theory, if a private group came up with the money, would you be alright with the Newark Rotary Club buying and maintaining a submarine with nuclear missiles?
If not, then you agree in principle that there’s a line we have to draw in balancing the individual right to self-defense with civic order and peace. You’d agree that the right to bear arms isn’t unlimited and unqualified. Now we’re just arguing about where to draw that line.
I’m not saying it’s not an interesting little historical factoid, but I can’t imagine that even Madison himself would have expected his letter to be somehow binding on us in 2018, when we’re dealing with a vastly different context. Also, one of these days I’m going to find an actual left-winger for you to talk to, just so you can stop firing accusations of leftism indiscriminately into the crowd.
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Buying your own nukes is pointless, far easier to influence the government instead.
Give me a motive why a private organization would acquire one. The mega corps that could conceivably afford one have holdings all over the world, they have no need to deter a nuclear attack since it would be ineffective and produce very little bang for their buck.
Using nukes would most likely be bad for business from a customer service and public relations standpoint.
This is a completely unrealistic scenario with no connection to my possession of a semiautomatic rifle.
Give me a motive why a private organization would acquire one. The mega corps that could conceivably afford one have holdings all over the world, they have no need to deter a nuclear attack since it would be ineffective and produce very little bang for their buck.
Using nukes would most likely be bad for business from a customer service and public relations standpoint.
This is a completely unrealistic scenario with no connection to my possession of a semiautomatic rifle.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
You might think it’s imprudent or not cost effective, but that’s not really a basis on which to make something illegal.
You guys keep saying, “well, no one would do it because it would be too expensive for little or no benefit.” That’s not really what I’m asking. I’m asking for a reason why someone should not be allowed to do it under your theory of the Second Amendment. I haven’t heard one yet. Just because something is expensive or dumb doesn’t mean you can legally ban it. I personally think people who own 30 or 40 guns are engaged in something wasteful and impractical too: can I ban that?
Isn’t the whole gun rights argument that you don’t have to justify exercising your rights? Someone might just as easily say “give me a motive why you might acquire a select fire rifle.” Isn’t the pro-gun answer “I don’t have to give you a motive, I just want one.”?
Also, sorry if this post is convuluted. Typing on my phone.
You guys keep saying, “well, no one would do it because it would be too expensive for little or no benefit.” That’s not really what I’m asking. I’m asking for a reason why someone should not be allowed to do it under your theory of the Second Amendment. I haven’t heard one yet. Just because something is expensive or dumb doesn’t mean you can legally ban it. I personally think people who own 30 or 40 guns are engaged in something wasteful and impractical too: can I ban that?
Isn’t the whole gun rights argument that you don’t have to justify exercising your rights? Someone might just as easily say “give me a motive why you might acquire a select fire rifle.” Isn’t the pro-gun answer “I don’t have to give you a motive, I just want one.”?
Also, sorry if this post is convuluted. Typing on my phone.
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No it isn’'t. Bad start, BoomBoom…
Free-market constitutional conservatives don’t think like the left. We don’t attribute religious to such things like your side does with skin colour and gender.
The free market that you seem to abhor so much does that and specifically in the context of culture. It is not government rules and regulations or people trusting the “experts” who’ve never fired a gun or held a real job in their lives with it, but the practical nature of the situation.
That’s why these strawman arguments of “what about owning a nuke…WAHHHHH” don’t hold water.
And you seem bothered by the fact that Madison made it very clear the #2A isn’t about owning only a musket.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
My personal answer is that I do not care if nukes were legal for the reasons outlined above. I would rather error on the side of freedom, given the poor record that the state has.
If you want a Constitutional justification for ownership of small arms that does not protect nukes, I refer you to United States v Miller.
If you want a Constitutional justification for ownership of small arms that does not protect nukes, I refer you to United States v Miller.
Last edited:
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
I gotta say, I respect the consistency and appreciate you actually engaging with the question.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
You’re smarter than this (I think, anyway.) But I’m leaving this here. You are such a blinkered partisan that you can’t even have a conversation. You’re just running down a list of talking points and engage with everyone as though they were Generic Liberal Bot 5000 (even if the person you’re talking to is not a leftist, and has said so many times, as is the case here.)
You’d be way more interesting if you engaged in good faith and accepted that there are more shades to the world than CONSERVATIVES GOOD LIBERALS BAD.
Last edited:
E
Escabrosa
Guest
Fair argument since you’re addressing the principle. If we break it down, the right to bear arms stems from the right to defend yourself and others you’re responsible for, which stems from the natural right to life.
From a practical perspective you could could break it down into echelons of defense starting with the individual and the immediate family. This niche would include small arms up to shoulder mounted anti tank weapons like LAWs or RPGs, and maybe light to medium machine guns. (I’m thinking of what “freedom fighters” in the middle east keep at home.)
Next would be Clan/Village/Small Town. A small collective of people who come together for the purpose of defense. Probably crew served weapons to include anti air, anti tank, mortars, etc.
After that you get into the big stuff all the way up to nation state.
So once you address the right to life of the individual you should look at the welfare of the community at large since it directly impacts on the safety and welfare of the individual and his/her family. An individual can’t fight off the Mongol hoard.
So yes, you make a good argument for there being some limitations on the individual, both practically speaking and out of principle. The problem lies in that governments gain too much control and use the safety of the community as a reason to take away all practical means of individual defense, giving them more power of course. We see this throughout history and we see it today.
From a practical perspective you could could break it down into echelons of defense starting with the individual and the immediate family. This niche would include small arms up to shoulder mounted anti tank weapons like LAWs or RPGs, and maybe light to medium machine guns. (I’m thinking of what “freedom fighters” in the middle east keep at home.)
Next would be Clan/Village/Small Town. A small collective of people who come together for the purpose of defense. Probably crew served weapons to include anti air, anti tank, mortars, etc.
After that you get into the big stuff all the way up to nation state.
So once you address the right to life of the individual you should look at the welfare of the community at large since it directly impacts on the safety and welfare of the individual and his/her family. An individual can’t fight off the Mongol hoard.
So yes, you make a good argument for there being some limitations on the individual, both practically speaking and out of principle. The problem lies in that governments gain too much control and use the safety of the community as a reason to take away all practical means of individual defense, giving them more power of course. We see this throughout history and we see it today.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Fair and interesting analysis, but isn’t it a central argument that one of the purposes of the 2A is to provide a check to government overreach, by enabling the people to overthrow the government militarily if needed?
If so, how can we say that private citizens don’t have the right to the same arms the state does?
It would be a pretty meaningless “check” to say, “I’ll be armed, and you can be too to keep me honest. But I get a SAW and you get an air rifle.”
If so, how can we say that private citizens don’t have the right to the same arms the state does?
It would be a pretty meaningless “check” to say, “I’ll be armed, and you can be too to keep me honest. But I get a SAW and you get an air rifle.”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
There are drug dealers that believe the very same thing about the laws against their profession.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
If the forum had a “like X10” function, Id have used it on your post.SuperLuigi:
You’re smarter than this (I think, anyway.) But I’m leaving this here. You are such a blinkered partisan that you can’t even have a conversation. You’re just running down a list of talking points and engage with everyone as though they were Generic Liberal Bot 5000 (even if the person you’re talking to is not a leftist, and has said so many times, as is the case here.)
You’d be way more interesting if you engaged in good faith and accepted that there are more shades to the world than CONSERVATIVES GOOD LIBERALS BAD.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
PLEASE SAY THAT AGAIN only LOUDER this time!SuperLuigi:
You’re smarter than this (I think, anyway.) But I’m leaving this here. You are such a blinkered partisan that you can’t even have a conversation. You’re just running down a list of talking points and engage with everyone as though they were Generic Liberal Bot 5000 (even if the person you’re talking to is not a leftist, and has said so many times, as is the case here.)
You’d be way more interesting if you engaged in good faith and accepted that there are more shades to the world than CONSERVATIVES GOOD LIBERALS BAD.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
They would be correct too.
E
Escabrosa
Guest
That is an aspect, and that can and has begun with the employment of small arms, even against a well armed government military. Insurgencies employing guerrilla warfare tactics don’t require jet fighters and nukes.
The gun control argument is basically one of individual rights vs the common good. This is an age old argument that we still haven’t ironed out, but history shows us that erring on the side of individual liberty tends to produce more prosperous societies. It also coincides well with the natural law, if you believe in that sort of thing, which I do.
I personally agree with J.S. Mill’s harm principle which states that people should be free to do as they wish as long as their actions don’t cause harm to others (I’ll add that there is another principle that states being offended is not the same as harm). Applying this principle makes murder wrong, but it doesn’t makes owning a gun wrong. The action is what’s important since owning a gun, in and of itself, doesn’t hurt anyone.
Of course it’s not that simple. Sometimes it’s beneficial for the individual to compromise in order to benefit the community, which in turn benefits the individual by protecting his or her individual rights. One of our government’s primary purposes should be to ensure individual rights to the point where they don’t interfere with another’s. That’s the liberty part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am tempted to examine how the Catholic social justice principle of subsidiarity is a good model to go by, but I’ll save that for another day.
The gun control argument is basically one of individual rights vs the common good. This is an age old argument that we still haven’t ironed out, but history shows us that erring on the side of individual liberty tends to produce more prosperous societies. It also coincides well with the natural law, if you believe in that sort of thing, which I do.
I personally agree with J.S. Mill’s harm principle which states that people should be free to do as they wish as long as their actions don’t cause harm to others (I’ll add that there is another principle that states being offended is not the same as harm). Applying this principle makes murder wrong, but it doesn’t makes owning a gun wrong. The action is what’s important since owning a gun, in and of itself, doesn’t hurt anyone.
Of course it’s not that simple. Sometimes it’s beneficial for the individual to compromise in order to benefit the community, which in turn benefits the individual by protecting his or her individual rights. One of our government’s primary purposes should be to ensure individual rights to the point where they don’t interfere with another’s. That’s the liberty part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am tempted to examine how the Catholic social justice principle of subsidiarity is a good model to go by, but I’ll save that for another day.
U
upant
Guest
why keep asking if you know the answer. they are just too expensive to practically own. it is not a reason to limit other items. everything should be available.
truths don’t change because of time, our tolerance for the truth changes.
do you have to justify any other right? well, the left is making a go for justifying free speech but you shouldn’t have too.
are they wrong? especially just the pot pushers? illegal in one state but get a license and it is legal in another state
depends on who is defining conservative and liberal
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And therein lies the great blind spot of the unfettered libertarian outlook.
You don’t see that when a man has unlimited freedom, the abuse of that freedom creates tyranny over other people.
“Well, Vons, then we should obviously try and prevent those abuses! Duh!”
Yeah. That’s why big, evil “gubmint” exists…
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I am not a libertarian. I just think drug policy has failed for the same reason Prohibition was a failure.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
That’s the most darning thing about trying to ignorantly divide people into dichotomies.
For example, is a libertarian “liberal” or “conservative”?
Sure, they’re all for limiting government (check the “conservative” box), but then they’re also for letting private, consenting adults do just about whatever they want. This includes same sex marriage, little-to-no drug restrictions, so on (check the “liberal” box).
- Status