Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

You were discussing the need to ban atuomatic weapons because of the -potential- harm they -could- cause, both to order and to people.

My comparisons are derived directly from that, and as valid as the standard you set.

But sometimes it's not useful to reason from analogy. The problem is the analogy becomes the subject of the discussion. I made the point that I favour prohibition of private ownership of auto weapons because of the potential for harm. If someone can prove there's no potential for harm then I'm on shaky ground. But the objection has to be directed against my stance.

 

[ReillyT]

Given that the amendment protects th eright of the people, how is that relevant.


Ammunisiton is every bit a part of "arms" as words are a part of "speech".

Further, the 1st amendment prevents any laws "abridging" freedom of expression.

To "abridge" is to "to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Infringe" means "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Thus you can't violate the right to bear arms, which arguably banning ammunition does not.

However, you can't reduce or lessen or diminish the right to freedom of speech and press, which arguably banning the written word does.

 

[AllieBaba]

Okay....how to prove the potential for harm....

How many gun murders a year are attributed to the registered owner of the murder weapons?

Prove that the registered owners of automatic weapons are out there killing people, and you have your proof.

 

[AllieBaba]

Further, the 1st amendment prevents any laws "abridging" freedom of expression.

To "abridge" is to "to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Infringe" means "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Thus you can't violate the right to bear arms, which arguably banning ammunition does not.

However, you can't reduce or lessen or diminish the right to freedom of speech and press, which arguably banning the written word does.

AMMUNITION is, itself, an ARM. MUNITIONS. Get it? No?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But sometimes it's not useful to reason from analogy.

In this case it is.
Your argument is based on "potential" rather than actual harm.
If the "potential" for harm is all that's necessary to take away someones' rights, then you need to turn in your penis.

I made the point that I favour prohibition of private ownership of auto weapons because of the potential for harm. If someone can prove there's no potential for harm then I'm on shaky ground.

The objection to your position is based on the lack of valiidity in the idea that "potential" for harm is sufficient reason to infringe on a right. As you will certainly not agree that such a thing is sufficient to take away penises, your're on shaky ground (at best) on that alone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thus you can't violate the right to bear arms, which arguably banning ammunition does not.
However, you can't reduce or lessen or diminish the right to freedom of speech and press, which arguably banning the written word does.

You're obviouly not at all interested in understainding why you;re so very wrong.

 

[Bern80]

But sometimes it's not useful to reason from analogy. The problem is the analogy becomes the subject of the discussion. I made the point that I favour prohibition of private ownership of auto weapons because of the potential for harm. If someone can prove there's no potential for harm then I'm on shaky ground. But the objection has to be directed against my stance.

Oh it has become only too clear that drawing comparisons isn't useful for your argument. It is also irrational. At some point you are going to have to justify putting automatic weapons in your cozy little box where rules only apply to them and not other things that also have a)the potential for harm, b)are not necessary, and c)are used for things other then their 'intended purpose'. The only real difference is your perception which may or may not be accurate.

It isn't that we have to prove no harm would come from a an automatic. Since I guess doing so would force you to rethink your position. If potential for harm is your next argument, and it is YOU that has no problem with people owning automobiles which have considerable potential for harm, then it is YOU who will have to come up with a reasoned argument as to why should be allowed and one should not.

 

[ReillyT]

AMMUNITION is, itself, an ARM. MUNITIONS. Get it? No?

Why would you say so? I think people generally consider arms as separate from ammunition. "Arms" fire ammunition.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, an "arm" is "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."

Ammunition is defined as "the material fired, scattered, dropped, or detonated from any weapon, as bombs or rockets, and esp. shot, shrapnel, bullets, or shells fired by guns. "

Thus ammunition in this sense is different than weapon. Different definitions can be used to describe "ammunition," but almost all of them define it as something fired from a weapon. I guess we can have a separate discussion about the definition of ammunition, but let's assume that ammunition is held to its common meaning as something separate from weapons per se. Then can we ban ammunition?

 

[ReillyT]

You're obviouly not at all interested in understainding why you;re so very wrong.

Share with me. It's an important topic. You're privilege to bear ammunition could someday rest on it.

 

[AllieBaba]

This is idiotic.

 

[ReillyT]

This is idiotic.

Nobody's begging you to stay.

 

[BrianH]

Just to clear the air a little bit on "weapons." A "weapon" is an individual item that is used to kill or do bodily harm to someone. Many of us own firearms, and do not own weapons. A firearm is not considered a weapon until it is used on another human for that purpose.

For example, is a semi-automatic rifle considered a weapon if you use it for target practice and/or hunting? Nope.

 

[ReillyT]

Just to clear the air a little bit on "weapons." A "weapon" is an individual item that is used to kill or do bodily harm to someone. Many of us own firearms, and do not own weapons. A firearm is not considered a weapon until it is used on another human for that purpose.

For example, is a semi-automatic rifle considered a weapon if you use it for target practice and/or hunting? Nope.

Fair enough. "Arms" apparently include weapons and firearms, but your point is well-taken.

 

[jillian]

Just to clear the air a little bit on "weapons." A "weapon" is an individual item that is used to kill or do bodily harm to someone. Many of us own firearms, and do not own weapons. A firearm is not considered a weapon until it is used on another human for that purpose.

For example, is a semi-automatic rifle considered a weapon if you use it for target practice and/or hunting? Nope.

Sorry, Brian. Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't see anything in the definition which would require that it first be used.

An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
tr.v., -oned, -on·ing, -ons.
To supply with weapons or a weapon; arm.

http://www.answers.com/topic/weapon?cat=technology

 

[Diuretic]

Okay....how to prove the potential for harm....

How many gun murders a year are attributed to the registered owner of the murder weapons?

Prove that the registered owners of automatic weapons are out there killing people, and you have your proof.

I don't understand what you're asking. The potential for harm from private ownership of full automatics is self-evident.

 

[Diuretic]

In this case it is.
Your argument is based on "potential" rather than actual harm.
If the "potential" for harm is all that's necessary to take away someones' rights, then you need to turn in your penis.

They'll take my penis from my cold, dead hands

The objection to your position is based on the lack of valiidity in the idea that "potential" for harm is sufficient reason to infringe on a right. As you will certainly not agree that such a thing is sufficient to take away penises, your're on shaky ground (at best) on that alone.

Not really. One of the many purposes of legislation is prevention of harm. Rather than wait for harm, it can be foreseen and steps taken to prevent it.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't understand what you're asking. The potential for harm from private ownership of full automatics is self-evident.

If it is, you'll have no difficulty in proving how much harm has been caused by legal owners of automatic weapons in the US today. You know, if there's inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons, you should have no problem proving it.

 

[BrianH]

Sorry, Brian. Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't see anything in the definition which would require that it first be used.



http://www.answers.com/topic/weapon?cat=technology

An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
tr.v., -oned, -on·ing, -ons.
To supply with weapons or a weapon; arm.

I can see why you would agree. But considering that most of us are never attacking or dending ourselves in combat, our instruments are not instruments of attack/defense in combat;weapons. IMO. Now, if we used the instrument in an attack or defense in combat, then it could be considered a weapon...again, just my opinion.

 

[Bern80]

Not really. One of the many purposes of legislation is prevention of harm. Rather than wait for harm, it can be foreseen and steps taken to prevent it.

When are you going to admit your argument doesn't have a shred of validity. Ever argument you've given has been summarily obliterated here. You go ahead and just keep ignoring it.

We'll call this your what 5th new argument now? This is simple math and is another argument that holds no validity at all. Based on statistics we by extension accept that x number of people are gonna die in car accidents each year. So we make efforts to make cars safer: seat belts, air bags, etc. Regardless we KNOW for a fact that thousands of people are going to die in car accidents in the next year, yet you're not up in arms about banning cars.

Again at some point your gonna have tell us all why automatics are so different that the rules you've rather arbitrarily put in place only apply to them.

 

[Diuretic]

If it is, you'll have no difficulty in proving how much harm has been caused by legal owners of automatic weapons in the US today. You know, if there's inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons, you should have no problem proving it.

I didn't say there's an inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons. I would be fine with someone owning an automatic weapon* that was incapable of being fired. I was referring to the potential harm in every private person owning an automatic that was capable of being fired.

*using "weapon" as a synonym for "firearm"