|
|
Post by agog on Aug 12, 2019 17:49:30 GMT -5
No one in the US ever had the "right" to bear anything more dangerous than a musket. That was about the most dangerous weapon at the time unless someone wanted to drag a cannon around with them. That was the weapon of war, not these current day assault rifles. That was the weapon that was in the minds of those in charge at the time that "right" was put into law. If only those lack-of-foresight goofs who wrote the Constitution had written "the right to bear muskets" and "the right to bear duelling pistols", what a different story this would all be. Who told you that silliness and why did you choose to believe it? |
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 12, 2019 18:58:00 GMT -5
No one in the US ever had the "right" to bear anything more dangerous than a musket. That was about the most dangerous weapon at the time unless someone wanted to drag a cannon around with them. That was the weapon of war, not these current day assault rifles. That was the weapon that was in the minds of those in charge at the time that "right" was put into law. If only those lack-of-foresight goofs who wrote the Constitution had written "the right to bear muskets" and "the right to bear duelling pistols", what a different story this would all be. Who told you that silliness and why did you choose to believe it? It was the ghost of James Madison who appeared to me one night. He said in retrospect, he should have thought more about the future consequences before he promoted the concept, but he had a bad case of diarrhea at the time and wanted to wrap things up quickly. I believed him because he still had some gas. |
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 12, 2019 20:43:08 GMT -5
They meant for the civilians to carry the same arms as the soldiers of the world carry. There is no way you know that, you weren't there. If they had meant that, then they should have written a clause into the Constitution such as "the right to bear the same arms as the soldiers of the world carry". They didn't. In fact, there is no possible way they could have ever dreamed of the technological advances in weaponry and that such weapons would be used against innocent civilians. Is your solution that everyone carry M-16s and AK-47s? Housewives, children, etc.? What you should think about is that most civilized countries in the world do not allow their citizens to carry such weapons and they don't seem to be having any major problems with the government taking them over forcefully. Sure, that happened the odd time in the past, but it doesn't anymore. Who are always the Happiest Countries In The World on all those surveys and polls? Almost always the Scandinavian countries, who not only DO NOT run around carrying guns but are also blatant socialists. Free health care, free tuition, free child care, etc. But big taxes on the rich. OH THE HORROR! Yet they seem to be doing very well and are far more content than people in the western world. In fact, if the US offered to take them over peacefully, I am sure they would be mortified and rioting in the street with torches and pitchforks. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 12, 2019 22:08:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PST on Aug 12, 2019 22:56:07 GMT -5
The founding fathers never could have imagined Television or the internet either, so the "Freedom of the Press" should not include anything other than books, magazines and newspapers.
Shutting down the 24/7 'news' on those other platforms would certainly make the world a better place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 12, 2019 23:06:02 GMT -5
The founding fathers never could have imagined Television or the internet either, so the "Freedom of the Press" should not include anything other than books, magazines and newspapers. Shutting down the 24/7 'news' on those other platforms would certainly make the world a better place. That's true, but at least that issue doesn't result in innocent people getting shot to death at their local school, church or store. Mind you, it could encourage copycats. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 13, 2019 7:12:46 GMT -5
Sloppy reading scf. BG said "rifles" not "firearms." |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 13, 2019 11:48:05 GMT -5
Abortion has murdered over sixty million in America alone since 1973. That is an example of what I call the Greater Wrong logic: The existence of a greater wrong (abortion, vehicular deaths, etc) justifies inaction with respect to an unrelated lesser wrong (firearm murders). I happen not to subscribe to the Greater Wrong logic. Note: this logic is also known as Relative Privation, but I think Greater Wrong is much more descriptive. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 13, 2019 12:00:32 GMT -5
FBI >> more killed by clubs , bats , hammers , then rifles 467 to 403 & 4 times more die from stabbings then rifles . Sloppy reading scf. BG said "rifles" not "firearms." Agog is right, I did not make my point properly. This is my point: 1. BG used Greater Wrong logic. I don't agree with that logic. 2. Clearly, rifle control is not sufficient. What is needed is firearm control. And I don't mean "ban", I mean keeping firearms away from the wrong people. |
|
|
|
Post by PST on Aug 13, 2019 17:07:59 GMT -5
Clearly we need autos which are not designed and built to exceed the national speed limit as well as cell phones which do not work if in motion at greater than walking speed. (The founding fathers never imagined either of those either, I suspect)
As long as those screaming to fix the little wrong (which does not impose on their lives), choose to ignore fixes for the big wrong (which would impose on their lives), what value do we assign their pleas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 13, 2019 18:29:35 GMT -5
As long as those screaming to fix the little wrong (which does not impose on their lives), choose to ignore fixes for the big wrong (which would impose on their lives) ... What is the big wrong and the little wrong you are referring to? what value do we assign their pleas? Value is entirely arbitrary and exists only in the mind of the beholder. To a vegan, filet mignon is worthless; a steak lover would disagree. What we are arguing about is not value but public policy. |
|
|
|
Post by PST on Aug 13, 2019 21:20:28 GMT -5
I see sloppy reading is a tactic rather than just a trait.
|
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 13, 2019 22:17:41 GMT -5
Abortion has murdered over sixty million in America alone since 1973. That is an example of what I call the Greater Wrong logic: The existence of a greater wrong (abortion, vehicular deaths, etc) justifies inaction with respect to an unrelated lesser wrong (firearm murders). I happen not to subscribe to the Greater Wrong logic. Note: this logic is also known as Relative Privation, but I think Greater Wrong is much more descriptive. Sloppy reading again scf. I didn't make a point that firearms shouldn't be banned because there are more people killed by other means. I made the point that great swaths of American and European people make such an issue of a relative molehill when they must overlook mountains to point out the molehill. It's the hypnotic behavior I was trying to bring to a reader's awareness. As Jesus put it to a group of Pharisees who was trying to find fault with which to condemn him: "... you swallow a camel yet choke on a gnat." |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Aug 13, 2019 22:45:13 GMT -5
They meant for the civilians to carry the same arms as the soldiers of the world carry. There is no way you know that, you weren't there. If they had meant that, then they should have written a clause into the Constitution such as "the right to bear the same arms as the soldiers of the world carry". They didn't. In fact, there is no possible way they could have ever dreamed of the technological advances in weaponry and that such weapons would be used against innocent civilians. Is your solution that everyone carry M-16s and AK-47s? Housewives, children, etc.? What you should think about is that most civilized countries in the world do not allow their citizens to carry such weapons and they don't seem to be having any major problems with the government taking them over forcefully. Sure, that happened the odd time in the past, but it doesn't anymore. Who are always the Happiest Countries In The World on all those surveys and polls? Almost always the Scandinavian countries, who not only DO NOT run around carrying guns but are also blatant socialists. Free health care, free tuition, free child care, etc. But big taxes on the rich. OH THE HORROR! Yet they seem to be doing very well and are far more content than people in the western world. In fact, if the US offered to take them over peacefully, I am sure they would be mortified and rioting in the street with torches and pitchforks. The whole point is that government should not be trusted (and only secondarily, that an armed citizenry provides an effective reserve pending full manning of a federal army when needed, and makes it likelier that there will be some weapons competency available on demand). Neither of those works if you say that only government gets improved weapons, but everyone else can only have muskets. Of course they meant for regular citizens to have the same firepower that basic infantry soldiers had. Which means we really ought to be allowed a full-auto (or at least burst mode) M-16, not a castrated AR-15 that's nothing more than a scary looking hunting rifle (not significantly different from a Ruger Mini-14, in terms of firepower - same caliber, magazine capacity, similar rate of fire...but the Mini-14 looks more like a traditional rifle). Read the Federalist Papers (let alone the anti-Federalist ones) if you doubt the historical accuracy of that interpretation. Or if you're not willing to do that, put your left-wing argument where the sun doesn't shine. |
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 13, 2019 23:48:18 GMT -5
There is no way you know that, you weren't there. If they had meant that, then they should have written a clause into the Constitution such as "the right to bear the same arms as the soldiers of the world carry". They didn't. In fact, there is no possible way they could have ever dreamed of the technological advances in weaponry and that such weapons would be used against innocent civilians. Is your solution that everyone carry M-16s and AK-47s? Housewives, children, etc.? What you should think about is that most civilized countries in the world do not allow their citizens to carry such weapons and they don't seem to be having any major problems with the government taking them over forcefully. Sure, that happened the odd time in the past, but it doesn't anymore. Who are always the Happiest Countries In The World on all those surveys and polls? Almost always the Scandinavian countries, who not only DO NOT run around carrying guns but are also blatant socialists. Free health care, free tuition, free child care, etc. But big taxes on the rich. OH THE HORROR! Yet they seem to be doing very well and are far more content than people in the western world. In fact, if the US offered to take them over peacefully, I am sure they would be mortified and rioting in the street with torches and pitchforks. The whole point is that government should not be trusted (and only secondarily, that an armed citizenry provides an effective reserve pending full manning of a federal army when needed, and makes it likelier that there will be some weapons competency available on demand). Neither of those works if you say that only government gets improved weapons, but everyone else can only have muskets. Of course they meant for regular citizens to have the same firepower that basic infantry soldiers had. Which means we really ought to be allowed a full-auto (or at least burst mode) M-16, not a castrated AR-15 that's nothing more than a scary looking hunting rifle (not significantly different from a Ruger Mini-14, in terms of firepower - same caliber, magazine capacity, similar rate of fire...but the Mini-14 looks more like a traditional rifle). Read the Federalist Papers (let alone the anti-Federalist ones) if you doubt the historical accuracy of that interpretation. Or if you're not willing to do that, put your left-wing argument where the sun doesn't shine. "The whole point is that government should not be trusted" LOL! Yet most countries around the world aren't having any problems without owning guns. You don't have to trust the government all the time, but being totally paranoid thinking you need a gun to defend yourself against your own government is not much different than being a total conspiracy theorist and looking for aliens in Area 51. "put your left-wing argument where the sun doesn't shine." OK, bend over and open wide! |
|
