The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[Cleon]

Ad hom. Par for course.

No care to address the arguments?

NAW.

*snicker* I think you should re-read that post.

 

[Aepervius]

Ad hom. Par for course.

No care to address the arguments?

NAW.

Ad hom ? You did not really understand what i wrote, right ?

 

[Amazer]

Ad hom ? You did not really understand what i wrote, right ?

Which might explain why he took it personally?

 

[Aepervius]

I am still awaiting any argument which makes clear why some human beings should be afforded the ability to arm themselves, and others should be stripped of that ability? ie the police, the military, and the government, but not the citizens?

because most society, recognizing that country defense and society law and order , needs more right than the average citizen to happen, otherwise it fails.

it is not that the citizen are stripped of that ability, it is that the police is given an additional ability above the citizen. You have it the other way around.

 

[Xulld]

Har har, snark is too clever. Founding father + name calling. Ohh so clever. Yea clearly it not an ad hom becuase the argument being disregarded is not the argument put forth by the founding fathers . . .

No clearly I did not understand your sarcastic snark as I am clearly taking this seriously. I did not however take it personally I am actually engaging int he conversation.

Can we do that?

because most society, recognizing that country defense and society law and order , needs more right than the average citizen to happen, otherwise it fails.

it is not that the citizen are stripped of that ability, it is that the police is given an additional ability above the citizen. You have it the other way around.

This is not a logical argument for why this should be true.

Is the difference between 1.5 murders per 100K and 5.5 murders per 100K the difference between a country having society, law, and order? Is 5.5 murders per 100K an indication of a failed society? How do you conclude that? Nothing more than hyperbole and assertion.

You will need to support that argument a little better . . . .

 

[Aepervius]

Har har, snark is too clever. Founding father + name calling. Ohh so clever.

No clearly I did not understand as I am clearly taking this seriously. I did not however take it personally I am actually engaging int he conversation.

Can we do that?

Let me spell it for you.

The right to bear arm.

Ursophile : like bears.

dyslexic : reverting order of word or letters

The right to arm bears.

Got it now ? it was a joke.

A pretty old one by that. ETA: not even a french one, first time I heard it was 20 years ago by American colleague.

 

[Information Analyst]

It's sad for me that the issue is so easily devolved through propaganda. It's a pretty recent development that our mother country reorganized their firearm laws. Britain had the same gun culture that the US had but went in a different direction. The main difference is that the UK viewed fully-endowed subjects along class lines having to do with pedigree, patronage and economic status and the US laws developed generally along the line of slavery.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The first British firearms legislation was in 1920 (we'll ignore the 1903 Pistols Act, which was really just an administrative money-earner), i.e. almost a century ago, and about 60% of the way between 1776 and now. How is that "recent"? And, seriously, the idea that "Britain had the same gun culture that the US had" is preposterous. Just because there was no legal impediment on firearms ownership before 1920 did not mean that British people armed themselves and used those arms as contemporary Americans did, because they clearly didn't.

 

[Aepervius]

Har har, snark is too clever. Founding father + name calling. Ohh so clever.

No clearly I did not understand as I am clearly taking this seriously. I did not however take it personally I am actually engaging int he conversation.

Can we do that?



This is not a logical argument for why this should be true.

Is the difference between 1.5 murders per 100K and 5.5 murders per 100K the difference between a country having society, law, and order?

You will need to support that argument a little better . . . .

it is a good enough argument. That you do not like it is clear. That does not make it bad.

 

[Xulld]

Let me spell it for you.

The right to bear arm.

Ursophile : like bears.

dyslexic : reverting order of word or letters

The right to arm bears.

Got it now ? it was a joke.

A pretty old one by that. ETA: not even a french one, first time I heard it was 20 years ago by American colleague.

I dont care about your joke, can we discuss the arguments?

it is a good enough argument. That you do not like it is clear. That does not make it bad.

It was a hyperbolic assertion. That is not an argument.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The first British firearms legislation was in 1920 (we'll ignore the 1903 Pistols Act, which was really just an administrative money-earner), i.e. almost a century ago, and about 60% of the way between 1776 and now. How is that "recent"? And, seriously, the idea that "Britain had the same gun culture that the US had" is preposterous. Just because there was no legal impediment on firearms ownership before 1920 did not mean that British people armed themselves and used those arms as contemporary Americans did, because they clearly didn't.

History fail. Common Arms ownership by the common man has been an English tradition since the long bow.

 

[Information Analyst]

History fail. Common Arms ownership by the common man has been an English tradition since the long bow.

Not at all. We're dicussing firearms in the context of the birth of the United States, so the clock starts ticking at 1776, by which time long bows were well out of the picture. And as has been pointed out, even the long bow has to be seen in the context of being for national rather than personal defence.

The simple fact is that "the common man" in Britain never owned firearms to the same extent as in the US, hence Cylinder's claim that, "Britain had the same gun culture that the US..." is complete nonsense.

 

[WildCat]

I think that one of the issues that we non Americans do not understand is that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment are a tad different than the "arms" available today.

Would the people who passed the amendment even have conceived a gun that could shoot 100 rounds in under a minute, or a pony nuke in a briefcase, or a tank? Does the right to bear arms include a nuclear missile, and if not, why not? The Second amendment does not prevent a private person from owning Nuclear Missiles.

The whole thing to me, is not the right to bear "arms", it is simply that the "arms" presently available are so far in excess in what was possible way back then, that had those people conceived what would be available in 2013, perhaps they may have put at least some limitations on what Joe Public should have a right to own.

Yes, I understand that the Supreme Court has made rulings from time to time over the limitations of the Second Amendment, but I really do not think that semi-assault rifles were ever in the mind of the persons who originally decided that the right to bear arms should include such beasts.

Norm

Would you likewise argue that the government can regulate speech on the internet and broadcast media, and the written word produced on an ink-jet printer, since they couldn't conceive of such things back then? That free speech applies only to face-to-face spoken words and type-setting printing presses?

 

[WildCat]

Whichever way you look at it, the 2A is inextricably linked to the formation of a militia and not to self or home defence. That the weapons can be used for personal defence is a consequence of their being owned and not the intent of the 2A.

Except that bit about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Apparently it's only in the 2nd Amendment that "the people" aren't "the people"?

 

[NoahFence]

Would you likewise argue that the government can regulate speech on the internet and broadcast media, and the written word produced on an ink-jet printer, since they couldn't conceive of such things back then? That free speech applies only to face-to-face spoken words and type-setting printing presses?

The government does regulate speech on the internet and broadcast media. It's called the FCC and doles out fines on a regular basis.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

There are people who claim that the Bible was created as a code by which people should live, but in reality it is a hodge-podge of writings that were assembled by many different people for many different reasons over a long period of time.

On the other hand, the US Constitution actually IS a code by which the business of government should be conducted and what relationship the government should have with its people. It was created specifically for that purpose so the new country would benefit from rule of law rather than rule of Whoever Takes Control.

As was proven with Prohibition, the Constitution can change as time goes by and priorities change.

 

[Nessie]

I disagree.

It has changed in most countries to a semi priviledge. The circumstances have changed from old law.

You are not entitled to a gun unless you prove by testing, a decent criminal record etc

Is that not how it is supposed to be in the USA? There are loads of gun restrictions in the USA, for example the laws to get a gun in New York and for CCW permits. Most Americans agree it is wrong for criminals, nuts, angry people and youths to have guns.

 

[Sabretooth]

I expected this response. What's wrong is that Americans, for some reason, believe that the right to bear arms is necessary to uphold articles 3 and 17 of the UNDHR, whereas people from no other developed nation do.

I'm sorry, arth, but that's going to require a citation. You'll have to quantify what a "developed" nation is, and show that quality of life is better because the citizens do not have access to firearms.

Judging by the facts I've seen cruising through the gun threads since the turn of the year, I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to prove this point.

Living in Australia, with no right to bear arms, I do not find my right to life, liberty or security infringed. These rights are upheld by my country's military and law enforcement, and I reap the benefit of that without being required to bear arms myself. And that works for me.

And? It seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance there.

"They (USA) have something I (Aussie) can't obtain, but I'm OK with it."

Truth is that the cultures from one country to the next are vastly different in their philosophies and what they consider a right versus a want. What works for Aussie's or UKer's doesn't always translate as good for someone else...whether it be government philosophy, logistics, or the mentality of the people.

For example, Switzerland. They have a firearm ownership rate that is nearly on par with that of the USA. No one brings them up when we discuss "developed" nations.

What is it about America that they feel they should consider gun possession a right when no other developed nation does?

This is a strawman unless you can prove it.

(Note that I am specifically referring to developed nations - what is usually and erroneously called the first world. Developing nations have their own problems which I do not wish to directly address here.)

Noted, but you need to clarify.

 

[WildCat]

The government does regulate speech on the internet and broadcast media. It's called the FCC and doles out fines on a regular basis.

It does no such thing. The FCC has no power whatsoever to regulate content on the internet, or of any media except over the air broadcasts. And even that is severely restricted, confined to daytime hours and extremely limited subject matter. And even that power has been greatly eroded by the courts in recent years.

Spout your nonsense elsewhere.

 

[WildCat]

Is that not how it is supposed to be in the USA? There are loads of gun restrictions in the USA, for example the laws to get a gun in New York and for CCW permits. Most Americans agree it is wrong for criminals, nuts, angry people and youths to have guns.

It's very likely New York's gun permit system will be struck down by the Supreme Court. But this doesn't happen overnight, cases take years to make their way there.

 

[cullennz]

This is probably a stupid question, but what is the definition of "arms"?

I mean is a flame throw an arm?

I know you have categories of guns that I won't even try to figure out, but there are more arms than guns

 

[cullennz]

It is probably a dumb question, but what do the US categories as an "arm"

When talking the right to bear arms

I know you have complicated gun categories

Is a Flame thrower an arm you have the right to?

Or explosives