Unalienable rights

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
One issue needs to be assessed critically lest our children grow up thinking there is no reason to parse constitutional issues of importance. Progressives are fond of saying that the government needs to “protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.” Sounds good and right, but they confuses the right of gun ownership with the violence perpetrated by people.  Guns never have, and never will, of their own volition, kill a single individual. If we ultimately severe the hand from the right to hold a gun with continued legislation — or executive order — those hands will find other weapons to commit their violence. Do we ban the spoon? It, too, can be a killing weapon, don’t you know?

However, the deeper issue is the confusion by which Progressives jerk “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration to also call them “constitutional” rights. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, declared these rights to be “self-evident,” “endowed by [the] Creator,” and “unalienable.” And if, as Progressives believe, the Constitution is malleable, a “living document,” as the progressive left is fond of saying, then “unalienable” is subject to revision merely by evolution of society.

Many may think this distinction is not important, but parsing is necessary because “these truths” of “life, liberty…” et al, are not controlled nor granted by government. It is the duty of government to assure they cannot and will not be taken from us — thus, “unalienable” — by anyone or any institution. Additionally, although constitutional, the second, and, indeed, the other nine Bill of Rights, are, likewise, “unalienable.”

That Progressives wants to truncate the second amendment is evident; that they can do so is less evident, regardless of altruistic motives. They demonstrates how lax their understanding of the Declaration and the Constitution is, and what “unalienable rights” truly means to us. 

The read of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will occupy a few hours for a slow reader. I suggest we do so, again — or, for the first time — before the next presidential election. It is critical that, as citizens, we understand what a president is duty-bound to “protect and defend” so that we are certain he, or she, is doing it. You may find that the current president is not.

#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
However, the deeper issue is the confusion by which Progressives jerk “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration to also call them “constitutional” rights. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, declared these rights to be “self-evident,” “endowed by [the] Creator,” and “unalienable.” And if, as Progressives believe, the Constitution is malleable, a “living document,” as the progressive left is fond of saying, then “unalienable” is subject to revision merely by evolution of society.
  • Can you provide three examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?
  • Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable, (which is to what malleable  and "living document" refer?
That Progressives wants to truncate the second amendment is evident
Is it?  or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world?  I don't know how you are defining Progressive or who you are thinking of when you generalize about them but let's take AOC.  Most Democrats agree that AOC is non-representatively extreme in her beliefs but Fox News certainly makes her out to be the heart and soul of Progressivism so if what you are saying is true, then AOC's desire to change 2A should be discoverable.

A couple of recent quotes suggest the opposite:

in the United States, cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly without running afoul of the Second Amendment
Here is AOC stating that NOT changing (or even running afoul) of 2A is a positive benefit

I believe the second amendment does not give one the right to bear weapons of war. I support an assault weapons ban, a ban on bump stocks, and other common sense gun reform. I also believe taking money from any corporations or lobbyists including gun lobbyists or private equity firms that have gun industry ownership stakes should
disqualify someone from running for public office. I am the only candidate in this race that has sworn to take no corporate PAC or lobbyist money so you can rely on me to fight for the people of my district instead of corporate interests. The gun lobby has twisted our policies and led to the deaths of millions.
an extreme position to be sure but you can't deny AOC is upholding 2A as the applicable standard.

Gallup posits that 74% of Americans believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to personal gun ownership and that number necessarily includes a lot of liberals and progressives.  Almost all of the argument lies in defining well-regulated which, yes, does change of necessity to technological change.  Nuclear weapons are "arms" but few would uphold the  private right to bear one. 

You say it is evident so what is your evidence?


Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
three examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?
You don't need three examples. You entirely miss the point of the next two sentences.

Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable,
No. The Constitution is not amendable by evolution of society; exactly what I said. It takes more than just evolution, doesn't it?

Is it?  or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world?
Too bad I don't watch Fox News. Sorry to spoil your paradigm.

cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly 
You mean like Chicago and NYC, where violence has increased significantly this year?


#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
-> @oromagi
three examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?
You don't need three examples. You entirely miss the point of the next two sentences.
That's a dodge,  so that's a no.  You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.

Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable,
No. The Constitution is not amendable by evolution of society; exactly what I said. It takes more than just evolution, doesn't it?

Another dodge,  I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society.  Nobody thinks that because nobody knows what that means.  I asked you if believe that the constitution is amendable, as everybody believes and the constitution guarantees?

Is it?  or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world?
Too bad I don't watch Fox News. Sorry to spoil your paradigm.
Fox News is a bit of catch-all but it doesn't matter because all thought on the Right is essentially monolithic.

cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly 
Total dodge, now you are pretending to be arguing against AOC and not me. 

I asked:

Do you deny that AOC is upholding 2A as the applicable standard.

You say it is evident so what is your evidence that Progressives as a party or movement seek to truncate the 2nd Amendment?  If you can't produce, your entire OP is straw.




#5
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Guns pose a unique threat compared to other items. They are the most common weapons used to facilitate murder. And unlike spoons, guns are designed to kill. They are not used solely for killing, but that is their purpose and why people believe they have a right to own a gun - to kill - not to shoot at targets. 

Cars, chemicals, food, drugs, alcohol, etc. require licensures or regulations for public safety. Why should guns not be regulated even though they are particularly dangerous? It can't solely be reference to guns in the constitution. The government has many speech regulations even though the first amendment protects our right to free speech. 

Guns are also not the only things we can use or may need to use for self-defense, yet the constitution does not reference other weapons or tools we have a right to access for this purpose. Seems arbitrary. And remember, the constitution is not absolute and was never meant to be. We have amended the constitution more than two dozen times. The founding fathers intended for the document to be flexible.

It is not just progressives that believe in constitutional amendments either. Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson are among the Republicans calling for a balanced budget amendment that would stop Congress from racking up debt. Rand Paul wants to change the constitution to limit how long politicians can serve in office. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz support amendments to challenge the legitimacy of gay marriage. Republicans have also proposed an amendment to repeal the federal income tax, so progressives are not the only ones who believe the document is malleable.

The concept of inalienable rights should be discussed in the philosophy or religion forum. I do not see it as very relevant to most constitutional debate. Even if rights do come from God, our interpretation of how those rights should apply in society is not necessarily clear from a legal perspective. For instance, should children or the mentally ill have access to the same resources (guns and otherwise) that other adults have access to? Where in the Bible does it give us clear guidance to these questions on rights? Most of our interpretation is made up in accordance to what we think is best for society, not religious dogma. A Mormon might think God gave him the right to have multiple wives, but we don't honor that religious view under the law. 
Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
That's a dodge,  so that's a no.  You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.
No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring. It was just to demonstrate your monolithic thinking as a Progressive, and you bit the bait; the very thing you accuse. Typical. You mean you do not believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are constitutional rights? Your heightened ire leans in that direction...

Another dodge,  I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society. 
No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society. Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats. Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge? Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat. AOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.
Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
Guns pose a unique threat compared to other items. They are the most common weapons used to facilitate murder. 
And? Which of those guns, on its own, murdered a human being? You're after the wrong weapon. The weapon of need to ban is in the head.  But you cannot regulate that, can you? Like I said, the spoon is a viable weapon in the desperate head. The next four choices, knives, other firearms not designated [but not rifles and shotguns], other unidentified weapons, and by hands, exceed the number of murders by handgun. In fact, further down the list are "assault weapons," yet that is the most significant target of the left. Why? Because, as AOC revised the 2A, the target is "weapons of warm," which is not the subject of the 2A. The 2A specifies "arms." It's generic in its nature.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi
That's a dodge,  so that's a no.  You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.
No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring.

"red herring" is concession.  fauxlaw does not now believe that Progressives mistake "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for constitutional guarantees, contradicting his own OP claim.

Another dodge,  I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society. 
No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society.
gobbledygook.  what does this mean?

Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats.
What Congress?  What year?  What bill?

Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge?

unparseable gobbledygook.

Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat.
There's one in the pipeline right now, limiting to power of presidential pardon:

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

The President shall not have the power to grant pardons and reprieves to—
“(1) himself or herself;
“(2) any family member, up to a third degree relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof;
“(3) any current or former member of the President’s administration;
“(4) any person who worked on the President’s presidential campaign as a paid employee;
“(5) any person or entity for an offense that was motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; or
“(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the President.
Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.”.
Republicans should favor the amendment since realistic appraisal of popular vote trending indicates that the Republican Party won't likely ever again achieve the White House

AOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.
another red herring.  I have given you two examples of AOC upholding 2A to which you refuse reply.  Since that's what AOC said and you are not contradicting her, your claim that AOC is not upholding the 2A is proved false.

In other fake news, fauxlaw is French for "fox is always right"

Topic's author
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
--> @oromagi
That's a dodge,  so that's a no.  You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.
No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring. 

"red herring" is concession.  fauxlaw does not now believe that Progressives mistake "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for constitutional guarantees, contradicting his own OP claim.

Another dodge,  I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society. 
No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society. 
gobbledygook.  what does this mean?

Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats. 
What Congress?  What year?  What bill?

Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge? 

unparseable gobbledygook.

Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat. 
There's one in the pipeline right now, limiting to power of presidential pardon:

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

The President shall not have the power to grant pardons and reprieves to—
“(1) himself or herself;
“(2) any family member, up to a third degree relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof;
“(3) any current or former member of the President’s administration;
“(4) any person who worked on the President’s presidential campaign as a paid employee;
“(5) any person or entity for an offense that was motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; or
“(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the President.
Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.”.
Republicans should favor the amendment since realistic appraisal of popular vote trending indicates that the Republican Party won't likely ever again achieve the White House

AOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.
another red herring.  I have given you two examples of AOC upholding 2A to which you refuse reply.  Since that's what AOC said and you are not contradicting her, your claim that AOC is not upholding the 2A is proved false.

In other fake news, fauxlaw is French for "fox is always right"

verbosity meaning:  merde.
#10
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw

And? Which of those guns, on its own, murdered a human being? 

Guns on their own do not murder human beings, but human beings overwhelmingly use guns as their weapon of choice to commit murder. They do so because guns are the easiest way to kill another person. So my question to you is why guns in particular should not be regulated even though we regulate far less dangerous things that are not specifically designed to kill.

If your response is that we have a constitutional right to gun ownership, I pointed out that 1) the constitution is not absolute and was not designed to be; 2) we have a constitutional right to free speech and yet we regulate that very much; 3) singling out our right to guns in particular for self defense seems arbitrary, considering we arguably have a right to use other weapons yet most other things are regulated -- for instance, do we have a right to nuclear weapons to fight tyrannical government, and why not? 4) Even if we do have a fundamental right to gun ownership, surely you do not believe it is universal in perpetuity. Violent criminals, toddlers and the mentally ill may be among populations whose right to gun ownership you wish to suspend, but that is not an advisory from God. That is a human interpretation of rights and where we think society ought to reconsider the eligibility for those rights. If you are okay with that then I do not see an "inalienable rights" argument against all gun regulation. 

And I definitely don't see a reason to call out progressives as being the only group who wish to amend the constitution. 


The weapon of need to ban is in the head.  But you cannot regulate that, can you?

No you cannot, which is why we instead regulate the objects or substances people can use to harm themselves or others (weapons, drugs, alcohol, etc.). 


Like I said, the spoon is a viable weapon in the desperate head.

Comparing a gun to a spoon is not rational or productive. 


 In fact, further down the list are "assault weapons," yet that is the most significant target of the left. Why?

Solely because that is the easiest legislation to pass, and they believe it is a reasonable place to start. 
#11
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Eh - yeah - at least two of those things are constitutional rights: Life and Liberty - also yes-  I do think we should get rid of the second amendment, its stupid - through and through. 
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Theweakeredge

--> @oromagi
Eh - yeah - at least two of those things are constitutional rights: Life and Liberty - also yes-  I do think we should get rid of the second amendment, its stupid - through and through. 
Now if you'd just kindly identify as a prominent progressive, fauxlaw can employ you as example number one.
#13
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Kadin
Cars, chemicals, food, drugs, alcohol, etc. require licensures or regulations for public safety. Why should guns not be regulated even though they are particularly dangerous?
You clearly have never bought a gun in your life lol
#14
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly have never bought a gun in your life lol

I did not say guns are not regulated. I asked why guns should not be regulated to someone who believes gun rights are unalienable.
Topic's author
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
Most regulation, what you want, but I am for limited regulation, is an attempt to regulate human behavior. How successful is that? Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. According to Pew Research in 2019, using data from 2017, roughly 40% percent of American citizens own guns; many own multiple guns. That's about 1323M Americans. In 2017, there were just under 40,000 killings by guns. However, a sticking point most do not dig deep enough in the survey to find is that 60% of that 40,000 are death by gun by suicide, which is not murder of another individual, and there is never a murder charge against a suicide, so your actual murders are much less that the 40,000. Yes, killing by a gun leads all weapons of choice, but, again, how successful is legislation attempting to control human behavior? Well, considering the population, 330M of us in the US, with 16,000 actual murders [not including suicides] that's a percentage of 0.12% of us. We kill more people on our roads and highways. Shall we regulate motor vehicles out of existence? Or, if we regulate guns out of existence, because, as you claim, they may have outlived their constitutional use, shall we then ban spoons, because they can kill, too? So can thumbs. Let's ban those, hoping that one or another ban will be 100% behaviorally effective.

You think I'm kidding. Nope.
#16
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
 I am for limited regulation

Then what do you mean by unalienable rights? 


an attempt to regulate human behavior. How successful is that?

This is similar to the question you asked earlier about banning "what's in people's heads." We cannot prevent every tragedy, but we do take steps to prevent some such as regulating the objects or substances people can use to harm themselves or others. Drugs is a good example. 


Yes, killing by a gun leads all weapons of choice, but, again, how successful is legislation attempting to control human behavior?

If it is harder to get guns, it is less likely they would be used as frequently to commit crimes. See stats on gun violence in Europe vs. the U.S. (which is more useful than just comparing cities in the U.S. with different laws, since crossing state lines with weapons or selling them undetected within the country is not very difficult). There is also some research to suggest that laws do affect human behavior. For example, more people smoke marijuana or started smoking it more regularly where it has been legalized. 


Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
That only persons, themselves, by self-recognition of the limit of their rights [wherein those rights do not invade the rights of others, such as yelling fire in a crowd, where no fire exists, thus causing potential injury to others, ought to be a self-regulated issue and not a matter of law. As James Madison once said, if men were angels, they would not need government. That is, they would inherently know where their individual rights end, and act accordingly. That they do not, thus, we need government.

Making it more difficult to buy guns only means that law-abiding citizens, by far the majority of us, are penalized for the actions of a minority. What makes that a proper course? Law-breakers will obtain guns regardless of regulations, just as they do, now.
#18
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
That only persons, themselves, by self-recognition of the limit of their rights [wherein those rights do not invade the rights of others, such as yelling fire in a crowd, where no fire exists, thus causing potential injury to others, ought to be a self-regulated issue and not a matter of law. As James Madison once said, if men were angels, they would not need government. That is, they would inherently know where their individual rights end, and act accordingly. That they do not, thus, we need government.

Of course "wherein those rights do not invade the rights of others" is subjective or not always clear. For instance, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater does not explicitly violate another person's rights. You said it causes potential injury to others. So does a child getting their hands on a gun.  I agree with James Madison that we need government and regulations. 


Making it more difficult to buy guns only means that law-abiding citizens, by far the majority of us, are penalized for the actions of a minority.

That's not only what it means. It means guns will be harder to access and therefore used in less crimes. 


What makes that a proper course? Law-breakers will obtain guns regardless of regulations, just as they do, now.

Why have any laws at all? 

Topic's author
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
What part of criminals not needing to buy guns through a limiting gov't sieve do you not understand? You limit law abiding citizens to no purpose, because attempts to legislate bad behavior to capture criminals has huge holes in it since criminals don't obey the law, anyway. The numbers ought to teach you that.

You have law to offer law-abiding citizens their parameters. The alternative is chaos.
#20
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
If you are trying to say that criminals get their hands on guns even with regulation, that is true. That is why some progressives want to ban guns entirely, or create licensures and other barriers to deter certain people (i.e. those who want to commit a crime of passion) from buying a gun in the heat of the moment. Others want to make it so that certain people can't legally obtain guns. If they want to get guns, they will have to purchase on the street which drives up cost. The more expensive and dangerous something is to buy, the less likely people are going to buy it. There are all different kinds of propositions for gun control, and you've already said that you support regulation. It sounds like you support society picking and choosing who is eligible for the right to gun ownership and who isn't. Are you a progressive? 
Topic's author
#21
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
You see the  "  icon above in the menu bar above? That allows to separate quotes from others from your text entry. Click on in, a gray bar appears in the text entry field. Copy/paste  your quote in that bar, then add your text below the bar.

Statutory law is expected to be obeyed, thus making law-abiding citizens. However, since most statutory law does not, by itself, control human behavior, because we each control that ourselves, you have criminal activity by each individual's choice. Some people do not care what the law says; they do as they please. The only avenue we have of correcting that lawless behavior is by law enforcement, but your ilk seems bent on defunding that effort. Meaning, you expect people to just obey law regardless of their proclivities. Nope, doesn't happen that way. So, making further law to restrict the actions of people who are law-abiding only achieves a reduction of their liberties.
#22
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
I apologize, I accidentally deleted one of my posts. I was able to hit the back arrow and retrieve it it so I will copy and paste it again. 


What part of criminals not needing to buy guns through a limiting gov't sieve do you not understand?

I don't understand your question here. I asked you why we should have any laws if your point is that people don't follow them anyway. 


You limit law abiding citizens to no purpose, because attempts to legislate bad behavior to capture criminals has huge holes in it since criminals don't obey the law, anyway. The numbers ought to teach you that.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that limiting law abiding citizens through gun regulations serves no purpose, I have already explained that regulating guns limits opportunities for gun access, thereby reducing the use of guns in criminal activity. The numbers tell us  that through statistical probability. 


You have law to offer law-abiding citizens their parameters. The alternative is chaos.

I don't know what you are trying to say here either. Law abiding citizens do accept gun regulations. 

If you are trying to say that criminals get their hands on guns even with regulation, that is true. That is why some progressives want to ban guns entirely, or create licensures and other barriers to deter certain people (i.e. those who want to commit a crime of passion) from buying a gun in the heat of the moment. Others want to make it so that certain people can't legally obtain guns. If they want to get guns, they will have to purchase on the street which drives up cost. The more expensive and dangerous something is to buy, the less likely people are going to buy it. There are all different kinds of propositions for gun control, and you've already said that you support regulation. It sounds like you support society picking and choosing who is eligible for the right to gun ownership and who isn't. Are you a progressive? 

#23
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
See above post. In response to your post #21, you said we make laws because we expect people to follow them. I don't see why we shouldn't make laws for gun control then, or why you think it matters that some people won't follow the law. People who break those laws should be punished. I did not say anything about defunding law enforcement, nor did I say that I expect everyone to follow the law.  I said if it is harder to get guns, they will be less likely to be used to facilitate crimes. 
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
I asked you why we should have any laws if your point is that people don't follow them anyway. 

Generalizations, in this instance [and seldom, do they apply] do not work. I did not say "people;" that's yours. I said criminals; a specific type of people, yeah? Try to understand the difference. You will find that I am very specific in my wording and I do not appreciate a general interpretation.

I have already explained that regulating guns limits opportunities for gun access,
You are generalizing again. I said regulating guns limits law-abiding citizens because crimin al will acquire their guns illegally, without regard for the regulations. 

Law abiding citizens do accept gun regulations. 

Not an over-abundance of them. I get the need to register gun ownership. I even get the need to limit military arms, but the term "assault weapons" is a generalized term because the term has no legal meaning. An AR-15, for example, is not used by the military, at all.  Beside the fact that such weapons, which fit under the general decsription of "rifle," and not "hand gun," are used in very few murders, whereas a hand gun is the weapon of choice for that crime.

Progressives progress with their sight focused on the rearview mirror, aiming for the origin of marxism, 1848. That time has passed. No, I am not a prog. I do not support the ban of all arms [note the2A specifies "arms" not "guns." You're generalizing. Again. and again.... and again.... and again... 


#25
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Imagine as a group all humans decide that we don’t have the right to free speech. We all amend our laws, teach our children that freedom of speech is not a right: and we all go about our day believing it’s not a right.

The only difference if rights are inalienable vs alienable in the above situation; is that all of humanity is wrong and doesn’t know it.

As there is no way of telling the difference between rights being what society defines at the time; and somehow inalienable - the distinction is meaningless.

Topic's author
#26
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Wow. Let me just take a moment... In my year, plus of membership, I don't recall we've ever had a conversation. You're something of a legend in my book. 

Anyway, I believe there are certain... attitudes I guess I'd call them; rights, certainly, that are in the realm of being basic to our sense of humanity. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is among them, and that is this subject, but it's close in that it relates to self-protection as a basic need of survival. So, I'm not sure that it doesn't take much more than reflection to realize that such rights are central to civilization. Yeah, I get it that a gun may be an excessive need for protection, but, on the other hand, it will, mostly, get the job done. Yes, I agree that too many are killed indiscriminately that would still be alive but for the sheer power a gun has to cause death when a less lethal weapon would do. Frankly, I wish we were more of a mind to be better angels to one another.
#27
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Generalizations, in this instance [and seldom, do they apply] do not work. I did not say "people;" that's yours. I said criminals; a specific type of people, yeah? Try to understand the difference. You will find that I am very specific in my wording and I do not appreciate a general interpretation.

That's fine, we can certainly use your word. You said that there's no point in creating certain gun regulations because criminals will not follow the law anyway. I then asked you what's the point of making ANY laws, since criminals won't follow those laws either? Laws don't stop criminals from rape, theft or even speeding, so why do you think it's useful to have those laws? You have not answered. 


Not an over-abundance of them. I get the need to register gun ownership. I even get the need to limit military arms, but the term "assault weapons" is a generalized term because the term has no legal meaning. An AR-15, for example, is not used by the military, at all.  Beside the fact that such weapons, which fit under the general decsription of "rifle," and not "hand gun," are used in very few murders, whereas a hand gun is the weapon of choice for that crime.

This is a tangent that attacks regulation and terminology I have not referenced at all. 

#28
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
You said guns never have and never will kill a single individual. After all, we don't ban spoons which can kill people, so why ban guns? I explained that unlike spoons, guns are designed to kill and they are the most popular weapon used to commit murder, which is why they are regulated whereas we do not regulate spoons. However we do regulate other dangerous substances that can harm people like drugs, alcohol, chemicals and even cars, so surely guns qualify as things that can harm people in society and ought to be regulated also... right?

You went on to discuss our constitutional right to gun ownership, and I replied that the constitution is not absolute. It was not intended to be absolute. It has not remained absolute. And other things that we have constitutional rights to (like speech) are indeed regulated, so what makes guns unique in that they should be the one absolute, unalienable constitutional right that is above regulation or change? You have not answered, nor did you address me pointing out (twice) that progressives are not the only ones who wish to amend the constitution.

I feel that is  noteworthy simply because your narrative creates a false dichotomy. First, it wrongly portrays conservatives as ardent defenders of the constitution as written when I have given a handful of examples of how they wish to change it as well. Second, you do not have to be "progressive" to support gun reform. You assumed things about my ilk,  my values and my political leanings just because I don't think guns should be a free for all in the market, but you don't know anything else about my politics. This narrative suggests if one wants to be "loyal" conservatives they can't be open to the idea of constitutional reform, and that's not true. 

It seems you keep implying that gun laws won't change anything. I explained that statistically, if guns are harder to get, they will be less available in circulation and therefore used less frequently to commit crimes. You did not explain  how this logic is wrong. You focused on the terminology of criminals not abiding by laws. I agree that laws create barriers for good people, but they create barriers for criminals as well. Some will of course disregard those barriers and break the law just like some people continue to rape and steal even though that is illegal and we put locks on doors. But overall we have determined that laws making it more difficult to act on poor human behavior is good for society.  

You've admitted that you are okay with certain regulations. All of the regulations you are okay with is your opinion and nothing more. The constitution nor Bible doesn't explain why 8 year olds should not legally be able to buy machine guns, but I assume you recognize why that would be a useful regulation. Man has always  reasoned through  human legal rights even if we believe they come from God. Children might come from God but we still parent them to the best of our human abilities. I think it's time we use human logic and reason to revisit gun laws. 

Topic's author
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Kadin
Laws don't stop criminals from rape, theft or even speeding, so why do you think it's useful to have those laws? You have not answered. 
Answer: the lighthouse effect.

This is a tangent that attacks regulation and terminology I have not referenced at all. 
By far, the greater majority of death by gunfire is fro handguns, so what's the big deal ab out "assault weapons," which is a term not very well defined at all. It's a catch-all.

guns are designed to kill
"If the purpose of guns were to kill, cops would not be allowed to have them because, in civilized countries contrary to James Bond movies, they don’t have a license to kill."

By the way, too much water kills - an essential of life, no less. We call it drowning. Maybe if we called it killing, we'd have fewer deaths by water? Yes, absurd. So is your argument.

conservatives as ardent defenders of the constitution as written
I do not contend that the Constitution is complete. The necessity of amendment occurs from time to time, and I find it remarkable that it is so well written, it has been amended only 27 times in 230+ years.

I am not opposed to regulations, when they make sense. But to impose regulations just because somebody has a hair up the arse about a product that is, after all, only generally reference in the 2A [it says "arms," not "guns'].
#30
Kadin
Kadin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 35
0
0
3
Kadin's avatar
Kadin
0
0
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Answer: the lighthouse effect.

This does not answer my question about why you think laws against all crimes but gun control are useful. 


By far, the greater majority of death by gunfire is fro handguns, so what's the big deal ab out "assault weapons," which is a term not very well defined at all. It's a catch-all.

I have already answered this: gun control advocates believe that banning "assault weapons" would be easier laws to pass, and is a logical place to start, even if handguns are used in more crimes. There is potential for more damage when you use certain kinds of guns, ammo or modifiers. I agree the terminology of what constitutes an assault weapon is unclear and often manipulative, but I don't think that is a reason to disregard the entire premise rather than figure out better wording and clarifications. 


"If the purpose of guns were to kill, cops would not be allowed to have them because, in civilized countries contrary to James Bond movies, they don’t have a license to kill."

By the way, too much water kills - an essential of life, no less. We call it drowning. Maybe if we called it killing, we'd have fewer deaths by water? Yes, absurd. So is your argument.

Which argument of mine do you think is so absurd? You have not specified. 

Police authority to kill has nothing to do with the purpose of guns. Guns are extremely capable of killing, and are often purchased specifically to kill either animals for hunting or humans for self-defense. To insist otherwise is an insult to everyone's intelligence. It is not rational to carry on a discussion about gun control from the framework that guns and killing are not relevant to one another, or are about as relevant as death by spoon or water. That is fallacious. 

When drug dealers are walking through a dangerous neighborhood ready to carry out a transaction, they do not make sure they bring a spoon. When a troubled student decides to massacre his classmates, he doesn't come equipped to the scene with a bucket of water. If equating or analogizing guns with spoons and water is all pro gun people have to stand on to defend their position, I believe that says quite a lot. 


I do not contend that the Constitution is complete.

So far you have agreed that the constitution is not complete, not absolute, and that certain gun regulations are reasonable. Yet in the OP you criticize progressives for believing the constitution is a living document. It seems you believe that as well. 


I am not opposed to regulations, when they make sense. 

And again, whatever gun regulations you support are nothing more than your opinion, as they are not specified in the constitution or Bible. If everyone is endowed by God with unalienable gun rights, why do you think society (someone like you) has a right to determine and regulate people's access to guns by  their age, criminal status, etc?

Here you are acknowledging that citizens should impose regulations "when it makes sense," so it doesn't sound like you think gun rights are absolute. It sounds like you think society should do what is reasonable. You may not agree with the gun control propositions of some progressives, but that is not the same as saying gun control regulations are inherently immoral because we have an unalienable right to guns, which is what you said in the OP when you mocked them for not understanding the constitution. 

I would also like to add that many progressives are pro gun. Some black nationalist movements, socialist organizations, and other left-leaning groups have argued at times in favor of responsible gun ownership. I am not sure if Bernie Sanders changed his position on guns, but he used to be criticized by some liberals for his views on it in years past.