LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
harm only to the foreign enemies of that nation. not to its own people.
Endowed and granted mean the same thing.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Background checks for work - That’s because there is no “right to work”!
R
Rau
Guest
Right, and thus the people can review the grant. We generally expect that all our rights are not unfettered. We generally expect our legislators or executive government to manage the intrerpretation of the extent of rights.
meltzerboy
New member
No, they are not very similar. Neither cars nor swimming pools are used for killing, whereas guns are used to injure or kill either humans or animals, or to defend against injury or killing by inflicting harm or the threat of harm. They are intimately linked to destructive means and goals whereas the other two objects are not.
R
Rau
Guest
To me this is narrow and idealistic, incompatible with the world in which we live. It assumes something about the world and the people in it that is not real, based on s view of only self. Individual freedoms are routinely limited because, in our world, that is good for the whole. And most people accept those limitations, recognizing it is better for the whole if they do.
Simply being armed is no threat to anyone.
Clearly, government having guns is a far greater threat than I am. So it should start with federal firearms. Perhaps the states would be in charge of who in the federal system gets guns.
Two points on drivers’ licenses
- driving is not a constitutionally enumerated right
- the federal government does not regulate drivers’ licenses. Nor should it. The NICS is a federal operation, but if you think the states should do it, like drivers’ licenses, okay, though I think the NICS would work better if the federal government does it without violating the constitution
B
Brendan
Guest
I can certainly find plenty of news stories about cars (and even pools) used for killing.
here is an Anschutz 1907, it is used in Olympic class target shooting. It is designed to put holes in paper.
http://www.potfire.com.au/images/detailed/0/1907_alum.jpg
How is that being " intimately linked to destructive means ". Do you consider putting holes in paper to be so destructive as to require regulation.
If so, should these be regulated? They both have the same “destructive goal”
And that is why governments, particularly progressive governments, want to disarm citizens. So they can rule with impunity .
Jon
meltzerboy
New member
I will give you guns used for marksmanship in sports, collecting, or target practice although the latter may have a destructive goal. But really, you believe cars and pools have a similar destructive purpose as guns? Be honest. Nice photo.
B
Brendan
Guest
I believe that the purpose resides in the person using them. It might be recreation, with is not a destructive goal. It might be hunting, which is not a destructive goal (and least no more destructive of a goal than scythe, in that it harvests food). The goal might be defense, which (contrary to your claim) is not a destructive goal.
So I do not see a innate destructive purpose in any of the objects that we have discussed. Thus, since they all have zero destructive purpose, I WILL honestly say that they are the same in this regard.
meltzerboy
New member
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I just find the notion that guns have “zero destructive purpose” the least compelling argument against gun-control legislation.
B
Brendan
Guest
You have agreed that guns designed to put holes in paper do not have a destructive purpose, and least no more so than a common office hole punch.
Ergo, a ‘destructive purpose’ is not innate to guns.
Thus any destructive purpose would be by the wielder.
And if it is possible for an inanimate object to have a ‘destructive purpose’, how about a sledge hammer. It’s purpose is to break and crack things, cinder block walls, driving wedges to crack wood, etc…That, by any definition, is an act of destruction. Does it follow that a device that has a ‘destructive purpose’ requires regulations, such a background checks and licensing?
The constitution doesn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms for sports. It protects the right in order to give the people ( the militia)the ability to protect the security of a free state. Note it doesn’t just say “the state”. That can be done by tyrants. It says “a free state.” That takes armed free citizens .
Jon
M
Mintaka
Guest
Let us look at a country with a well-armed and well-regulated militia, ever since the Middle Ages.
Let’s look at Switzerland.
Switzerland is a country made up of separate sovereign states (ie, cantons). Its people speak three languages: German, French, and Romansch (sort of like Italian). Every Swiss man who is not a criminal, and who is a capable adult, is forced by law to train for war and to keep high-powered guns in the house. (There was a law passed in the last five years that allowed individual militia to get permission to keep their guns in an armory, but it isn’t common.) Every Swiss man knows where he is assigned to go to defend his country, in time of emergency or war, and he is also expected to take initiative if the country is attacked by surprise.
Now… since the gun in his house is Switzerland’s gun and not his gun, there are quite a few rules about how he can use his military gun. OTOH, he can have guns for hunting or other personal use without much trouble. Switzerland used to have extremely loose canton laws on getting guns, but in the 1990’s, foreigners ended up coming in and buying guns to spread all over Europe in criminal ways. Switzerland was also under pressure to conform to EU laws. So they caved; but practically speaking, it’s still pretty easy for Swiss to get Swiss guns, except for fully automatic weapons. Also there are tons of legacy guns kicking around the cities and countryside.
The Swiss also live peacefully among many skillfully concealed gun emplacements and secret bases, hidden all over their country in ways that would make the average super-villain jealous. Today tourists can go and see a lot of their WWII era secret bases, which means that they have even tougher and scarier secret bases now.
The Swiss are not known for gun violence, even though every Swiss home has a high-powered modern gun.
Switzerland’s number of gun deaths last year was 3 per 100,000. There don’t seem to be any accidental deaths; there were 2 suicides per 100,000, and there was 1 homicide per 100,000. There have been years with more homicides in recent years, but basically the entire country has a lower gun crime rate than most small cities in the rest of the world.
So what do we conclude?
Obviously, we need to instruct and equip more people with guns, and make them do huge amounts of training until they are precise like the Swiss. The Swiss give their citizens a lot of individual control and trust over the country’s defenses, which may make their citizens more balanced and serious.
I don’t demand secret mountaintop lairs, or fake buildings in every city and village that are really fortresses. Though that is pretty cool.
Let’s look at Switzerland.
Switzerland is a country made up of separate sovereign states (ie, cantons). Its people speak three languages: German, French, and Romansch (sort of like Italian). Every Swiss man who is not a criminal, and who is a capable adult, is forced by law to train for war and to keep high-powered guns in the house. (There was a law passed in the last five years that allowed individual militia to get permission to keep their guns in an armory, but it isn’t common.) Every Swiss man knows where he is assigned to go to defend his country, in time of emergency or war, and he is also expected to take initiative if the country is attacked by surprise.
Now… since the gun in his house is Switzerland’s gun and not his gun, there are quite a few rules about how he can use his military gun. OTOH, he can have guns for hunting or other personal use without much trouble. Switzerland used to have extremely loose canton laws on getting guns, but in the 1990’s, foreigners ended up coming in and buying guns to spread all over Europe in criminal ways. Switzerland was also under pressure to conform to EU laws. So they caved; but practically speaking, it’s still pretty easy for Swiss to get Swiss guns, except for fully automatic weapons. Also there are tons of legacy guns kicking around the cities and countryside.
The Swiss also live peacefully among many skillfully concealed gun emplacements and secret bases, hidden all over their country in ways that would make the average super-villain jealous. Today tourists can go and see a lot of their WWII era secret bases, which means that they have even tougher and scarier secret bases now.
The Swiss are not known for gun violence, even though every Swiss home has a high-powered modern gun.
Switzerland’s number of gun deaths last year was 3 per 100,000. There don’t seem to be any accidental deaths; there were 2 suicides per 100,000, and there was 1 homicide per 100,000. There have been years with more homicides in recent years, but basically the entire country has a lower gun crime rate than most small cities in the rest of the world.
So what do we conclude?
Obviously, we need to instruct and equip more people with guns, and make them do huge amounts of training until they are precise like the Swiss. The Swiss give their citizens a lot of individual control and trust over the country’s defenses, which may make their citizens more balanced and serious.
I don’t demand secret mountaintop lairs, or fake buildings in every city and village that are really fortresses. Though that is pretty cool.
R
Rau
Guest
IMO, this is a denial of what is obvious. Jon wants the guns so he can match the destructive capacity of his government.
R
Rau
Guest
Is this disputed? What I question is the approach you seem to convey (I could be misreading you however…) that the constitution needs to be regarded akin to religious dogma. The statements in the constitution ought not to demand the level of regard that is accorded to dogma. They are by their nature utilitarian, and what is utilitarian need not be fixed for all time. We can see fit to refine, adapt or even abandon some elements if we feel they no longer serve us well.
B
Brendan
Guest
Your claim is unproved.
If it is an innate purpose of destruction, the Anschutz that I pictured above would have the same destructive purpose as a common office hole punch, namely to put holes in paper.
is that what you mean by having a “innate destructive purpose”
If so, why are hole punches not similarly regulated, as they have the same purpose.
As an additional point, there is the sledge hammer, it’s design purpose is clearly destructive. Does having a design purpose that is destructive necessitate high levels of regulation?
What I have not seen demonstrated from either you nor Meltzer is that
- Guns have an innate destructive purpose, the existence of the Anschutz and other Olympic class rifles demonstrate to the contrary.
- That having a destructive purpose (such as a sledge hammer) necessitates regulation.
M
Mintaka
Guest
The Constitution can be amended. However, an amendment which is not done according to the basic principles of American government is a foolish amendment, or possibly even a wicked amendment. It will fail, and it will cause a lot of havoc first.
For example, Prohibition. People certainly meant well, and alcohol was responsible for so many sorrows and deaths! Wine control! Whisky control! Why not outlaw it for everything but absolute necessities?
Yeah, it worked really well. Especially the part where the government increased organized crime, encouraged disregard for the law, and poisoned hundreds of thousands of American citizens in the name of keeping alcohol unsafe for drinking. Meanwhile, most federal government officials in Washington DC were allowed to drink freely, under exceptions to the law. When the Amendment was finally taken down after only a few years, it left carnage behind that is still being dealt with. (Not to mention the total destruction of American brewing traditions and thousands of local companies.)
One of the basic principles of our Republic, and one of the basic principles of American life during the days of the Colonies, is that every man who is capable should be able to defend himself and his family, and that the law encourages such self-reliance. Every man should be able to hunt, too, because it is useful for feeding the family. And because every man has a gun and knows how to use it, every town and village has its own fighting force capable of banding together against enemies. We don’t have to sit around and wait to be rescued by a central army; and in a big country, it’s stupid to do so.
Having a gun and knowing how to use it is a life skill, just like knowing how to swim without drowning, or how to use various kinds of knife for various tasks without stabbing yourself or others, or being able to light a fire and use it for various purposes without burning yourself or the whole forest. That’s why they used to teach shooting in the Boy Scouts, and it was even a thing in the Girl Scouts at one time. (In some places, it still is, I’m happy to say.)
Treating guns like some mysterious thing that is only used for shooting yourself or criminal activities is profoundly unsafe. It’d be like being afraid of scissors, or shuddering and turning away from every knife rack.
My dad had a gun rack in his house from the day I was born, just like my mom had a knife rack full of sharp incredibly doohickies, and several deadly heat-producing machines, and a medicine cabinet full of poisons. Just like my dad had a multi-ton killing machine parked in the driveway, for that matter, and a garage and shed full of poisons and sharp doohickies. Tools are powerful things. They exist for skillful use, not for fear.
For example, Prohibition. People certainly meant well, and alcohol was responsible for so many sorrows and deaths! Wine control! Whisky control! Why not outlaw it for everything but absolute necessities?
Yeah, it worked really well. Especially the part where the government increased organized crime, encouraged disregard for the law, and poisoned hundreds of thousands of American citizens in the name of keeping alcohol unsafe for drinking. Meanwhile, most federal government officials in Washington DC were allowed to drink freely, under exceptions to the law. When the Amendment was finally taken down after only a few years, it left carnage behind that is still being dealt with. (Not to mention the total destruction of American brewing traditions and thousands of local companies.)
One of the basic principles of our Republic, and one of the basic principles of American life during the days of the Colonies, is that every man who is capable should be able to defend himself and his family, and that the law encourages such self-reliance. Every man should be able to hunt, too, because it is useful for feeding the family. And because every man has a gun and knows how to use it, every town and village has its own fighting force capable of banding together against enemies. We don’t have to sit around and wait to be rescued by a central army; and in a big country, it’s stupid to do so.
Having a gun and knowing how to use it is a life skill, just like knowing how to swim without drowning, or how to use various kinds of knife for various tasks without stabbing yourself or others, or being able to light a fire and use it for various purposes without burning yourself or the whole forest. That’s why they used to teach shooting in the Boy Scouts, and it was even a thing in the Girl Scouts at one time. (In some places, it still is, I’m happy to say.)
Treating guns like some mysterious thing that is only used for shooting yourself or criminal activities is profoundly unsafe. It’d be like being afraid of scissors, or shuddering and turning away from every knife rack.
My dad had a gun rack in his house from the day I was born, just like my mom had a knife rack full of sharp incredibly doohickies, and several deadly heat-producing machines, and a medicine cabinet full of poisons. Just like my dad had a multi-ton killing machine parked in the driveway, for that matter, and a garage and shed full of poisons and sharp doohickies. Tools are powerful things. They exist for skillful use, not for fear.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I believe that an armed populace is the best means of making sure government responds to the limits imposed on it by the people through the constitution. It isn’t a matter of matching firepower because that isn’t possible. But potential tyrants need to be aware that their plans will be met with resistance. As Jefferson said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Jon
R
Rau
Guest
I find the advocates of SSM argue similarly. They deny what is stunningly obvious - the body of man is made for woman, and other arrangements are absurd. They stretch credulity to the limit. I don’t mean to cause any offence, but that is my takeout. The nature of weaponry and why (by and large) it is acquired by the majority- & over which gun control advocates seek to place some controls - is obvious.
- Status