Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

I have already asked my questions.
Go back and answer them.

I've answered every single question you've asked me, that I've been aware of. I've done so dutifully. I've taken pains to make my responses clear and accepted that you disagree with them. If I haven't answered a question from you then here is where you need to be specific about the question. I may have missed your question, entirely possibly in a lengthy thread, but I've done my level best to answer them as I saw them.

Now, I'd appreciate it if you would give me the chance to respond to a question I allegedly haven't addressed. When I've done that I would appreciate an answer from you to my "two worlds" question, I don't believe you addressed it.

So, over to you, please let me know the question I didn't answer.

 

[LOki]

The premise that an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others I'd agree with, but I'd suggest that there may be more to look at. Take the 1st Amendment, free speech provision. Defamation laws provide a reasonable restriction and true, they're predicated on the individual rights of others. But inflammatory speech amounting to incitment is also restricted but not on the basis of a direct interference with the rights of others (and I accept that there is a link with the rights of others but it's distant) but on the need to maintain peace and good order in society.

There's no limitation on free speech for being infammatory--there are laws against starting riots. Different business.

So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines.

No. It's unacceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective defensive weapons.

Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive.

So what?

To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition).

Unmitigated nonsense.

Only speaking for myself, I haven't advocated "banning guns", but if someone has then they need a reality check.

You haven't advocated "banning guns" (including prohibition)? Any guns? You're sure?

Look, I don't believe in strict Constitutionalism, but it is the 2nd Amendment crowd that wants to ignore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a basis for limiting the right to bear arms.

The preamble to the statement that expresses the the right, does not put limitations on the right--the preamble expresses the Government's interest in regognizing that right and protecting it.

The Government is not empowered to restict rights.

Fine. If we want to be literal, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent the limitation of the sale of ammunition. Ammunition is not the same thing as "arms". I am just playing along.

The ammunition is a neccessary component to firearms that makes them meaningful as arms. Placing limitiations on ammunition certainly infringes upon keeping and bearing arms.[/QUOTE]

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.

<a href="http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/infringe">Main Entry: <b>in·fringe</b></a>
Pronunciation: \in-&#712;frinj\
Function: <i>verb</i>
Inflected Form(s): <b>in·fringed; in·fring·ing</b>
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>
<b>synonyms</b> see trespass
<b>— in·fring·er</b> noun

<i>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law</i>
Main Entry: <b>in·fringe</b>
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: <b>in·fringed; in·fring·ing</b>
Etymology: Medieval Latin <i>infringere</i>, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be <i>infringed —U.S. Constitution</i> amendment II>; <i>especially</i> : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH <b>—in·fring·er</b> noun​

You can't <a href="http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/encroach"><b>encroach</b></a> upon the right to bear arms in a way violates the right, which arguably banning ammunition certainly does.

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?

No.

Main Entry: 3<b>arm</b>
Function: <i>noun</i>
Usage: <i>often attributive</i>
Etymology: Middle English <i>armes</i> (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
<b>1 a</b>: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; <i>especially</i> : <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm">firearm</a> <b>b</b>: a combat branch (as of an army) c: an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
<b>2</b> <i>plural</i> <b>a</b>: the hereditary heraldic devices of a family <b>b</b>: heraldic devices adopted by a government
<b>3</b> <i>plural</i> <b>a</b>: active hostilities : warfare <a call to <i>arms</i>> <b>b</b>: military service
<b>— up in arms</b> : aroused and ready to undertake a fight or conflict <voters <i>up in arms</i> over the proposed law>

Main Entry: <b>am·mu·ni·tion</b>
Pronunciation: \&#716;am-y&#601;-&#712;ni-sh&#601;n\
Function: <i>noun</i>
Etymology: obsolete French amunition, from Middle French, alteration of munition
Date: 1607
<b>1 a</b>: the projectiles with their fuses, propelling charges, or primers fired from guns <b>b</b>: cartridges <b>c</b>: explosive military items (as grenades or bombs)
<b>2:</b> material for use in attacking or defending a position <<i>ammunition</i> for the defense lawyers>

Main Entry: <b>fire·arm</b>
Pronunciation: \&#712;f&#299;(-&#601r-&#716;ärm\
Function: <i>noun</i>
Date: 1646
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms​

Ammunition is a neccessary component to firearms that makes them meaningful as arms. Placing limitiations on ammunition certainly infringes upon keeping and bearing arms.

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

Considering all the acceptable (to you) items out there that present "the potential for harm" (freedom of the press for instance--acceptable to you I'm presuming) the relevency of pointing out the potential for harm as a reaon for prohibiting fully automatic weapons (while I presume you wouldn't prohibit printing presses) is questionable.

You seem to hold only fully automatic weapons to this standard of yours--the appearance is that you simply don't want people to have them and you're searching for some rationalization to support imposing your want on other people.

I didn't say there's an inherent harm in just owning automatic weapons.

No. You said there's a potential for harm--but it appears that it's a very special kind of potential for harm for fully automatic weapons; one that doesn't apply to other items that have a "potential for harm".

You've been adamantly coy about addressing this point (and similar ones that illuminate your hard-on for banning fully automatic weapons), which has been brought up a number of times.

I would be fine with someone owning an automatic weapon* that was incapable of being fired.

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

It really wouldn't be a weapon then, would it? At least not in so far as you'd insist how it's primary purpose demands the weapon to function, and be functional.

I was referring to the potential harm in every private person owning an automatic that was capable of being fired.

Reference noted--so what?

A penis isn't an offensive weapon, it's friendly, well for the most part. It is capable of being misused that's true, but it's a piece of original equipment for roughly half of the population (for many the balls that usually come with it are optional extras). But more than that.

It's the original dual-purpose weapon. As such it's not subject to the controls that you're urging.

A fully automatic firearm isn't an offensive weapon, it's a defensive weapon, well for the most part. It is capable of being misused that's true, but it's important function is a benefit to the entire population of sensible freedom loving individuals. But more than that.

It's a dual-purpose weapon--not only useful for self defense, all the more effective defending one's community in concert with one's neighbors, but also fun to practice with at targets and old coffee cans. The right to keep and bear these weapons shall not be infriged upon by the government, as detailed in the Second amendment to our constitution, as such it's not subject to the controls that you're urging.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've answered every single question you've asked me, that I've been aware of. I've done so dutifully

This is BS, and you know it.
So much for you being honest.

 

[Diuretic]

This is BS, and you know it.
So much for you being honest.

Where's my question? Come one, this is childish. If you asked a question and I didn't answer it then all that is needed is for you to refer me to the question. Heck I'll even take a post number. But I just need to know which question I haven't answered. You've made the allegation, it's only fair you provide me with specifics and not some sort of generalisation.

Give me the question. I will answer it.

 

[manifold]

Where's my question? Come one, this is childish. If you asked a question and I didn't answer it then all that is needed is for you to refer me to the question. Heck I'll even take a post number. But I just need to know which question I haven't answered. You've made the allegation, it's only fair you provide me with specifics and not some sort of generalisation.

Give me the question. I will answer it.

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

 

[Diuretic]

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

What's the weight (metric please) of the Swallow? Is it returning to San Juan Capistrano? How old is it? Is it male or female? Did it stop over in Tijuana for Tecate and tequila?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's the weight (metric please) of the Swallow? Is it returning to San Juan Capistrano? How old is it? Is it male or female? Did it stop over in Tijuana for Tecate and tequila?

The proper response is " African or European?"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where's my question? Come one, this is childish.

Yes. And I expected better of you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

And that kind of thinking is VERY bad. All fire arms are "weapons", just as all knives are "weapons".

 

[Diuretic]

The proper response is " African or European?"

Damn, I failed my ornithology test. In my defence I was too frightened to ask - PC don't ya know

 

[manifold]

Damn, I failed my ornithology test. In my defence I was too frightened to ask - PC don't ya know

What's the matter, no Monty Python down under?

 

[Diuretic]

What's the matter, no Monty Python down under?

I don't know if we have Pythons. Of course Australia was the setting for the famous "Bruces" sketch....http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.html - it would appear we're a bit attached to it.

But on the other pythons, we can do better. Try this one. The most venomous land snake in the world lives here:

http://users.esc.net.au/~whitters/page4.html

The drought has forced it from its isolated habitat (where I've worked) to near city areas which is a worry.

As for our water snakes, if you scuba dive here in fresh water

http://www.parks.sa.gov.au/ewens_ponds/index.htm

and you see a snake in the water, you need to know it can killl you and it is aggressive (unlike the Inland Taipan).

Give me a Monty Python any day.

 

[manifold]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4[/ame]

 

[Bern80]

You've avoided the question three times now.
If you cannot address the criticisms regarding validity of your standard, why do you continue to hold onto it?


No. Burden here is on you.
Show that the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other.

Don't hold your breath. He flat out ignores me now.

 

[Diuretic]

To be frank we're going in circles. I'm not trying to argue that I have the answers, I don't, but when the discussion descends into personal jibes (not that I'm averse to that, I hand them out so I have to take them) and repetition of arguments without decent rebuttals then it becomes a bit pointless.

I've asked for a question I apparently missed to be put to me. As of this post I haven't been given the question. It's quite easy for it to be put to me, all it takes is a new post.

I don't have long, complex, word by word arguments. I've been making very straightforward arguments but they've been diverted, twisted, ignored, re-stated, re-framed and basically manipulated and I just won't play that game. You want headfuckery then play with someone else.

Now, if I can have the question I apparently missed, I'd be happy to give a response to it.

 

[Bern80]

To be frank we're going in circles. I'm not trying to argue that I have the answers, I don't, but when the discussion descends into personal jibes (not that I'm averse to that, I hand them out so I have to take them) and repetition of arguments without decent rebuttals then it becomes a bit pointless.

I've asked for a question I apparently missed to be put to me. As of this post I haven't been given the question. It's quite easy for it to be put to me, all it takes is a new post.

I don't have long, complex, word by word arguments. I've been making very straightforward arguments but they've been diverted, twisted, ignored, re-stated, re-framed and basically manipulated and I just won't play that game. You want headfuckery then play with someone else.

Now, if I can have the question I apparently missed, I'd be happy to give a response to it.

Go back and read some of the posts of mine you neglected to reply to Diuretic. You will see plenty of sentences with question marks on the end of them.

I and others have rebutted every single argument you have put forth. I have asked you in question form countless times now to justify your position, so don't give us this no one is asking questions bullshit. In a couple rare instances you actually answered except the answer made your argument even more bazar. So here they are for the record. Each question has to do with each argument you have put forth.

You have made some distinction in your head where you will allow people to own certain things they don't need but not others. QUESTION: What is that distinction?

That one you answered except you gave the wrong answer. You said purpose. I along with others have explained several times why your 'the purpose of automatics is to kill people' premise is simply false. It is false because the most you can attribute purpose wise to the inanimate object that is an automatic weapon is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly. What those bullets get fired quickly at is determined by a person. Yet even more interesting is that if we took it for given that an automatics purpose was to kill people the argument still doesn't logically work. QUESTION: So since at the end of the day the person will be deciding what the automatic will be used for, of what relevance is this perceived purpose where ownership is concerned?

Then you got on your potential harm argument. We can use a common denominator like 'things that cause death' that is most certainly a form of harm. QUESTION: And if prevention of potential harm (death in this case) is your argument and basis for banning ownership of automatics why are you not arguing for that banning of other things that have statistically shown they have an equal or greater potential for harm like cigarettes, or cars?

To some extent you have answered all of these in your rather interesting statement (and I'm paraphrasing) 'sometimes analogies aren't helpful to arguments'. I'm sorry but it's pretty hard to miss the irony in such a statement. So my last QUESTION How do you justify applying this standard of ownership with the argiments of need/purpose/potential for harm to automatics and not other things that we don't need/aren't using for their 'intended purpose'/have greater potential for harm?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To be frank we're going in circles. I'm not trying to argue that I have the answers, I don't, but when the discussion descends into personal jibes (not that I'm averse to that, I hand them out so I have to take them) and repetition of arguments without decent rebuttals then it becomes a bit pointless.

I've asked for a question I apparently missed to be put to me. As of this post I haven't been given the question. It's quite easy for it to be put to me, all it takes is a new post.

I don't have long, complex, word by word arguments. I've been making very straightforward arguments but they've been diverted, twisted, ignored, re-stated, re-framed and basically manipulated and I just won't play that game. You want headfuckery then play with someone else.

Now, if I can have the question I apparently missed, I'd be happy to give a response to it.

You have claimed "potential" as the reason to ban automatics all the while refusing to admit that REAL deaths are much higher with cars and cigerrettes and a number of other items completely legal. When pointed out to you you act all offended and then play games. You have no reasonable argument, it fails on so many points that you have changed it, what 3 times now?

 

[Diuretic]

I hate this style of picking out bits and commenting but it looks like I have no choice.

Go back and read some of the posts of mine you neglected to reply to Diuretic. You will see plenty of sentences with question marks on the end of them.

I and others have rebutted every single argument you have put forth. I have asked you in question form countless times now to justify your position, so don't give us this no one is asking questions bullshit. In a couple rare instances you actually answered except the answer made your argument even more bazar. So here they are for the record. Each question has to do with each argument you have put forth.

You have made some distinction in your head where you will allow people to own certain things they don't need but not others. QUESTION: What is that distinction?

I’ve answered that every time I’ve been asked. I explained in great detail the ideas of “need” and “want” in their various contexts. Because you or anyone else rejects my arguments doesn’t cause me to change my mind. Simply telling me I’m wrong won’t persuade me.

That one you answered except you gave the wrong answer. You said purpose. I along with others have explained several times why your 'the purpose of automatics is to kill people' premise is simply false. It is false because the most you can attribute purpose wise to the inanimate object that is an automatic weapon is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly. What those bullets get fired quickly at is determined by a person. Yet even more interesting is that if we took it for given that an automatics purpose was to kill people the argument still doesn't logically work. QUESTION: So since at the end of the day the person will be deciding what the automatic will be used for, of what relevance is this perceived purpose where ownership is concerned?

I gave a “wrong” answer. Do you see why I’m just reading your posts and then not responding? What is a “correct” answer? One you agree with?

Then you got on your potential harm argument. We can use a common denominator like 'things that cause death' that is most certainly a form of harm. QUESTION: And if prevention of potential harm (death in this case) is your argument and basis for banning ownership of automatics why are you not arguing for that banning of other things that have statistically shown they have an equal or greater potential for harm like cigarettes, or cars?

Because, as I pointed out repeatedly, the primary purpose of those objects isn’t to kill humans. The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people. The primary purpose of a car is to transport people. That’s my argument. Is it “wrong” again? Now don’t tell me I’ve evaded your question or ignored your question. There, yet again, is my reasoning.

To some extent you have answered all of these in your rather interesting statement (and I'm paraphrasing) 'sometimes analogies aren't helpful to arguments'. I'm sorry but it's pretty hard to miss the irony in such a statement. So my last QUESTION How do you justify applying this standard of ownership with the argiments of need/purpose/potential for harm to automatics and not other things that we don't need/aren't using for their 'intended purpose'/have greater potential for harm?

Here it is yet again.

Any manufactured object begins as a concept in someone’s mind. Just as architecture and industrial design uses the formula of form following function, so it is with any other object. Take an electric toaster. Why does it look like it does? Because its purpose dictates its design. If it looked like a saucepan then it wouldn’t be able to toast bread.


There are several ways bread can be toasted. The most effective is to use a toaster. You can’t use a toaster to poach eggs. But you can use a toaster to belt someone around the head. This is an adaptive use.

But the fact that a toaster can be used for assault doesn’t take away from the fact that the toaster is designed to toast bread. That is its primary purpose.

You can use a toaster to kill. If someone is in a bath you can throw the toaster into the water (making sure the toaster is plugged in to the wall socket) and electrocute the victim. A toaster can be used to kill, that is another adaptive purpose.

But again that adaptive purpose doesn’t change the fact that the toaster’s primary purpose is to toast bread. You don’t need a toaster to toast bread but it is pretty effective at it. There are no restrictions on toaster ownership because their primary purpose is to toast bread.

Given that, if you want to toast bread in an effective and largely no-fuss manner then you need a toaster.

The focus in my reasoning is on the primary purpose of the toaster.

To the guns.

A fully automatic firearm has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings.

Because it’s primary purpose is to kill human beings it should only be owned/possessed by those who can show a legitimate need to kill human beings.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Submachine guns, one person fully automatic weapons, were NOT designed to kill. They were designed to suppress the enemy. Force them into cover restricting their vision and movement while allowing the other side the time to move and engage first.

 

[Diuretic]

You have claimed "potential" as the reason to ban automatics all the while refusing to admit that REAL deaths are much higher with cars and cigerrettes and a number of other items completely legal. When pointed out to you you act all offended and then play games. You have no reasonable argument, it fails on so many points that you have changed it, what 3 times now?

I don't want to ban cars and cigarettes. There's a very good reason for that. And it goes to the primary purpose of those objects.

What are cars for? Transporting people.

What are cigarettes for? Putting nicotine into the body.

What are machine guns for? Killiing people.

Luckily I can differentiate between the primary purpose of these three items. It's called discrimination. That's why I can call for restrictions on machine guns which amount to prohibition of private ownership and yet I don't have to call for a ban on cars or cigarettes. I can do that without any inconsistency because I'm using the primary purpose of each item as my grounds for discrimination.