New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after 'assault weapon' ban

[JonNC]

f you think it establishes gun rights as inherent, you have made up your own far-fetched scriptural implication that no Christian authority agrees with (that I have seen.)

No. Not explicitly. But natural law certainly does as a necessary aspect of the right to self defense.

No I am not. They have the right to do anything they want at the time they are attacked.

Including the use of protected weapons.

But you are talking about doing something on speculation that you might be attacked. That is a different right.

Self defense includes being prepared just in case. Are you proposing outlawing martial arts because it is speculative?
It is precisely the same right.

Actually that is not so impossible.

I honestly think the difference between us is I’m always looking for ways to defend individual rights.

As I said, just because I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist, that does not mean they do.

I am not aware of unicorns being mentioned in the framers’ writings, or that of serious writers on natural rights. So comparing individual rights to unicorns seems a stretch of an analogy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No. Not explicitly. But natural law certainly does as a necessary aspect of the right to self defense.

Another assertion with a source.

Self defense includes being prepared just in case.

Another assertion without a source.

Are you proposing outlawing martial arts because it is speculative?

The reason the study of martial arts is not outlawed has nothing to do with the fact that it is preparation for self-defense. It is not outlawed because it does not present the same danger to society that a huge number of guns does. But there are other studies that are outlawed, such as the study of making pipe bombs, nerve gas, and radiation bombs. Just saying they are speculative does not give you a pass to prepare them.

I am not aware of unicorns being mentioned in the framers’ writings, or that of serious writers on natural rights. So comparing individual rights to unicorns seems a stretch of an analogy.

For the purposes of the point being made, they are similar enough in that they are both things that do not exist. The point being made is a general one. Namely, that the burden of proving something exists is on the person claiming it does exist. The one who challenges that assertion does not need to prove anything. The analogy makes that point perfectly.

 

[JonNC]

The problem is this has the phony built-in pre-supposition of law-abiding benevolent Governments.

I believe there are many on the left who really think this is irrelevant, frankly.

 

[JonNC]

Another assertion with a source.

Yes, I provided a source.

Another assertion without a source.

Leave your doors unlocked at night, don’t lock your car doors and leave the key in the ignition. By all means, do not buckle your seatbelt. Skydive with a parachute.
If you need a source for any of these, please ask someone else.

The reason the study of martial arts is not outlawed has nothing to do with the fact that it is preparation for self-defense. It is not outlawed because it does not present the same danger to society that a huge number of guns does.

My gun presents zero threat to others, but this is an argument shift. Your argument was having a firearm is speculative. You said: But you are talking about doing something on speculation that you might be attacked. That is a different right.
So is studying martial arts is speculative as well.

But there are other studies that are outlawed, such as the study of making pipe bombs, nerve gas, and radiation bombs. Just saying they are speculative does not give you a pass to prepare them.

Not a single one of these is considered a firearm. The SCOTUS has already answered this. It, too, is a shift in argument.

Namely, that the burden of proving something exists is on the person claiming it does exist. The one who challenges that assertion does not need to prove anything. The analogy makes that point perfectly.

I already have. Please provide a support that the framers were wrong in their understanding of natural law and its historic identity of arms as a right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Another assertion with a source.

Yes, I provided a source.

But not a source that said what you claimed.

Another assertion without a source.

Leave your doors unlocked at night, don’t lock your car doors and leave the key in the ignition. By all means, do not buckle your seatbelt. Skydive with a parachute.
If you need a source for any of these, please ask someone else.

Your assertion was a right to prepare for self defense by owning a gun. These analogies you have provided all fail to support that assertion. The skydiving case, for example, shows the wisdom of having a parachute. It does not establish an inherent right to have a parachute. If you don’t have one, don’t go skydiving. Once again, what official moral teaching says everyone has the right to prepare for self defense by owning whatever gun they deem necessary?

The reason the study of martial arts is not outlawed has nothing to do with the fact that it is preparation for self-defense. It is not outlawed because it does not present the same danger to society that a huge number of guns does.

My gun presents zero threat to others, but this is an argument shift. Your argument was having a firearm is speculative.

That was not my argument for why guns are not a right. It was my argument for why such a right is not already covered by the right to self defense. I know this is getting complicated, but try to keep the arguments and reasons for them straight.

But there are other studies that are outlawed, such as the study of making pipe bombs, nerve gas, and radiation bombs. Just saying they are speculative does not give you a pass to prepare them.

Not a single one of these is considered a firearm.

I was not claiming they were firearms. I present them only to shoot down your argument that restrictions on guns are somehow similar to restrictions on martial arts. You were the one who introduced martial arts into the debate. You have no cause to complain now that something that you introduced was in fact unrelated to the debate about firearms.

Namely, that the burden of proving something exists is on the person claiming it does exist. The one who challenges that assertion does not need to prove anything. The analogy makes that point perfectly.

Please provide a support that the framers were wrong in their understanding of natural law and its historic identity of arms as a right.

Once again, the burden is on you to show they were right, not on me to show they were wrong.

 

[Cathoholic]

Donkey . . .

There was a church shooting in Texas today.
Notice how some parishioners stepped into action.

I just saw that too. (And began a thread on it.)

 

[JonNC]

But not a source that said what you claimed.

We hold these truths to be self evident.

Your assertion was a right to prepare for self defense by owning a gun.

Indeed. And you denied that as a right.

The skydiving case, for example, shows the wisdom of having a parachute.

Owning a firearm shows the wisdom of having an effective to to defend oneself and others.

Once again, what official moral teaching says everyone has the right to prepare for self defense by owning whatever gun they deem necessary?

Your official moral teaching. You’ve provided no other source. I have.

That was not my argument for why guns are not a right. It was my argument for why such a right is not already covered by the right to self defense.

Another argument shift. And again, based only on your assertion.

You were the one who introduced martial arts into the debate.

Your position is that speculative preparation is not part of the right to self defense. I disagree, regardless of the tools are martial arts, firearms, or other tools that free people may choose.

Once again, the burden is on you to show they were right, not on me to show they were wrong.

In other words, you have no argument to defeat your position.

 

[Hume]

Apologies, JonNC. Ive been away today.

Let’s begin!

There is no law that allows rights to exist. The notion that government grants rights is a fascistic one.

In objective reality, a right that the government does not defend is a right you effectively don’t have. You can keep saying “this is my right!”, sure. But that absolutely does not make it so.

The reality is that unless government can fully protect citizens from criminals, citizens have the right to the tools to defend themselves.

The government can’t fully protect you from crime. It never has and never will. Crime even occurs in the most centralized police-states.

But neither will your AR. When the blood thirsty-rapist wielding another AR15 bursts through your door, he’s not going to call ahead and wait for you to sufficiently arm yourself.

Instead of locked, loaded and at the ready, you’ll probably be at the dinner table with a fork full of macaroni in mid-flight to your mouth.

The initiative is an advantage that the freakishly, freakishly rare home invader will always have and you cannot defeat, even if you have an M1 Abrams in your garage.

You are the one proposing the confiscation of rights and firearms,

For at least the 4th time now, no I’m not. No one is proposing confiscation.

This doesn’t end the crimes. It only ends the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves.

It limits the ability for the perp to commit the crime. Look at the gun crime stats of literally any well-developed nation other than the US. They don’t have the guns you have and their societies are safer. The victim-filled apocalypse you predict just doesn’t happen.

Good for you.

shrug You asked.

Is not unlimited, as we clearly see with limited access to automatics, nuclear material, etc. etc. etc.

These arguments are mere deflection.

Not at all. They’re the reality in which we exist.

And please don’t hide behind SCOTUS. They’ve reversed themselves 236 times in their existence. For instance, a good Catholic wants SCOTUS to reverse themselves on other issues.

The defense of semiautomatics as some supposed right you have, even if not stated in the constitution only serves to arm criminals with bullet hoses. We are less safe due to the efforts of those that defend easy civilian access to semiautomatic arms.

 

[Hume]

Cathoholic:

The problem is this has the phony built-in pre-supposition of law-abiding benevolent Governments.

I believe there are many on the left who really think this is irrelevant, frankly.

Not at all.

It’s just there are many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it from a perspective of force.

Even if you had automatics and basic crew-serve weapons, a large group of domestic terrorists in the United States (what you called “freedom fighters”) would be supremely dominated anywhere they were foolhardy enough to raise their flag.

Like every other rebellion or insurgency in the modern age, your ability to persist would depend on your ability to hide. Anywhere you came out into the open would find you destroyed utterly to the last man.

Since the mechanization of warfare, you have no other choice. It’s the objective reality in which you live.
The government has tanks, missiles, and all other manner of things that a rebel couldn’t afford. And if they could, the one or two entities that sold it wouldn’t sell it to them.

Domination. Swift, vicious and unambiguous domination is what awaits anyone who wants to openly rebel against the US in acts of domestic terrorism.

 

[Hume]

Like it or not, your vote and the first amendment are really all you have.

Elect people that value and defend both and we’ll be ok. Elect people that don’t respect the rule of law (looks at current prez) and you have every right to be nervous.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . . .

It’s just there are many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it from a perspective of force.

Yeah. That’s right. Fall into despair.

Just submit.

(This whole country was founded on the antithesis of the Hume attitude.)

 

[Hume]

Hume . . . .

It’s just there are many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it from a perspective of force.

I don’t despair a bit. I vote for people who value the first amendment and the rule of law.

 

[JonNC]

In objective reality, a right that the government does not defend is a right you effectively don’t have. You can keep saying “this is my right!”, sure. But that absolutely does not make it so.

In the United States, there is a constitution that protects rights from the government. I don’t have to say, “ this is my right”. Government is on notice that it is.
The position that governments grant “privileges” that it can turn around and rescind, is, as I said, the fascistic premise that, “ Everything in the State , nothing outside the State , nothing against the State”.
But you have pointed out the first reason for protection of the right to keep and beat arms.

The government can’t fully protect you from crime. It never has and never will. Crime even occurs in the most centralized police-states.

Bingo! Hence, another reason under the right to self defense, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

For at least the 4th time now, no I’m not. No one is proposing confiscation.

Oh, I’m for the total ban on all handguns.

Okay.

The defense of semiautomatics as some supposed right you have, even if not stated in the constitution only serves to arm criminals with bullet hoses. We are less safe due to the efforts of those that defend easy civilian access to semiautomatic arms.

Which, as usual, completely ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides do not occur with legal firearms. They occur with illegal firearms.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

The government can’t fully protect you from crime. It never has and never will. Crime even occurs in the most centralized police-states.

Yeah. Thanks for admitting that Hume.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it

Hume (essentially contradicting himself) . . .

I don’t despair a bit.

 

[Hume]

In the United States, there is a constitution that protects rights from the government.

The interpretation can and does change over the years and - at extreme - this constitution can and has been changed.

For example, who knew the Commerce Clause, written over 200 odd years ago, legalized same-sex marriage?

Bingo! Hence, another reason under the right to self defense, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

As the average shots fired in a self-defense situation is between 2 and 3 (granted I looked at this years ago, so I’m happy to round up to 4 if you want), a bolt, pump or lever gun with an attached magazine will serve just fine.

For at least the 4th time now, no I’m not. No one is proposing confiscation.

Oh, I’m for the total ban on all handguns.

Okay.

Respectfully sir, these are not the same. Not even close.

Let me explain. When the soft ban on automatics came into effect, it placed substantial restrictions on the sale of automatics on a forward-going basis.

Those already out there stayed out there on grandfather exemptions. No “Jack-booted government thugs” coming around to take them out of your hands.

 

[Hume]

Hume . . .

many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it

I can’t do anything about the sunrise, so I guess I despair about the sunrise?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t despair a bit. I vote for people who value the first amendment and the rule of law

Then you must vote against progressives. They oppose religious free exercise.
They support Antifa type anti-free speech activities.

But rule of law includes protection of all of the enumerated rights, including the right protected by the 2a.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I don’t despair a bit. I vote for people who value the first amendment and the rule of law

Then you must vote against progressives. They oppose religious free exercise.
They support Antifa type anti-free speech activities.

But rule of law includes protection of all of the enumerated rights, including the right protected by the 2a.

The left commit the crime of demanding a government that doesn’t force the religious views of one group upon others. I proudly stand with them on this.

For example, if you want your household to mirror traditional Catholic reproductive rights, Great! But don’t force your views on my household, thanks!

And I agree that the rule of law requires submission to it. Which is why I want to change it, not launch an armed rebellion.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume pretending the inevitability of the earth turning equals the power of Governments . . .

I can’t do anything about the sunrise, so I guess I despair about the sunrise?

And THIS is how the leftists think about Big Government. It is just inevitable.

Don’t fall for their ideas Hume. Don’t let 'em put that stuff in your head.