Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no desire to wade into your debate, just pointing out that you were misrepresenting 19th century laws banning the carrying of concealed firearms. Carry on.
I did no such thing. I said carrying a concealed weapon back then was illegal and now it's some awesome "gun rights" issue by the gun lovers. I made no reference at all to open carry.
I do not like seeing average Joes walking around strapped when I'm in Gunnut-ville, Pennsylvania either.
It's pretty simple: You're willing to throw away Second Amendment rights if it will save some childrens' lives. Are you also willing to throw away First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights if THAT would save some childrens' lives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
People have been killed in riots which started out as peaceable assemblies. Of course, rioting isn't protected by the 1st amendment, but neither is murder by the 2nd.
We are rehashing the same points, over and over again.
First of all, no. I am not "willing to throw away" the 2nd Amendment. This is divisive hyperbole. Legislation calling for broader gun "control" does not equal gun "ban". I, and other people in this thread, have said it several times now.
Second of all, what is "some children's lives" to you? How do you define "some"? One kid from Toms River? Or, as per Gunnluvver2, only "606" nationwide (or really, as I pointed out, "only" 207, if we're gonna bother to read the CDC National Vital Statistics Report table correctly). OR, really 6,512 children, if we are not only going to read the table correctly, but also not cherry pick selected data to conform to to an anti gun control agenda.
But whether "some" children, or 6,000 children, it's still not all about "the children" either. How condescending to reduce it down to people clutching their pearls over The Children. It's NOT "pretty simple" at all. It's much wider in scope than trying to save "some children". Look at the bigger picture.
Why does the U.S. have such a high number of guns, the most on the planet, in circulation among the general population? Should we, as a nation, allow the NRA and gun manufacturers to have so much power? Why do we, compared to other comparably developed 1st world countries, have the worst gun violence? Why are we on par with some of the most violent 3rd world countries?
Why have we had 60+ multi-victim or mass shootings in the past 30 years, with 16 of those shootings happening in 2012 alone? Do we leave the gun laws status quo, and just what...ignore the statistics? Let them escalate? Brush them off? Deny there's any problem, whatsoever? Use the cop out excuse that since too many bad guys acquire guns illegally, we shouldn't make it any harder for "law abiding citizens" to get them? James Holmes was a law abiding citizen. So was Wade Michael Page, for the most part, if you don't count a DUI. A lot of these guys were "law abiding citizens"...until they were not. And the majority of the guns used in these shootings were obtained legally. People have too easy access to too many guns.
Third of all, how many children have died because of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment? I'll play along with you and concede that it's technically possible for some to have died because of these amendments. So, how many do you think? I can't find any stats on that. I can't find any stats on unlucky (but oh well, it's WORTH IT) children dying from riots breaking out during peaceful assemblies. If this ever actually happened, it's so anomalous that there aren't enough stats to gather. I CAN, however, find plenty of stats on firearm related deaths. Why do think that is?
YOU ARE PLAYING GAMES when you ask an absurd, hypothetical question like "Are you also willing to throw away First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights if THAT would save some childrens' lives?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Then what are you talking about? How can one amendment among ten, all enacted on the same date, be outdated while all the others are not?
It's perfectly possible for some principles to still be relevant today, and for others to be (at least partially) obsolete, or not entirely pertinent to current times. Why is this so hard to fathom? Times change, situations change, people change, and some amendments are gonna need rethinking.
The principle of free speech? Still pertinent.
The principle of "right to bear arms"? Debatable. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is debatable. There has been scholarly debate for, literally, centuries. SCOTUS has had differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment through the years. A valid argument for SCOTUS would not be along the lines of, "Well, the 2nd Amendment has the same date on top of it as the 1st Amendment, and nobody wants to change the 1st Amendment, so we shouldn't mess with the 2nd at all either."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Since your examples concerned technological change, technology for speech and the press have changed a LOT more than firearm technology. But do you seriously assert that the founding fathers of the United States, a group which included a number of inventors including Benjamin Franklin, would not expect technological progress?
The technological advances for speech and press are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm sure the founding fathers foresaw technological progress. But do you seriously assert that the founding fathers would have intended the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of any "law abiding" ("law abiding" so far, keep your fingers crossed, but no guarantees) citizen to buy an AR-15 at a gun show?
What is ironic is that the 2nd Amendment was influenced by the principle of the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights, and yet it is the UK now which has some of the strictest gun laws (and among some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world).
Ben Franklin, by the way, was a progressive thinker and one that was willing to change with the times, as opposed to stubbornly and close mindedly conforming to antiquated ideals in the name of pseudo patriotism. This was a man that went from slave owner to abolitionist. It's not so hard to imagine that he would at least CONSIDER a change to the 2nd Amendment if he knew the state of things today.
Yes muzzle loaders were the form of firearm available to the People in the 1770s. But remember the citizens owned the same type of weapon that the Armed Forces of that time (militias) also had. Firearm technology has improved tremendously since 1776. Yes citizens have access to modern firearms with a lot more firepower today compared to 1776. However PRIVATE CITIZENS cannot own or carry the same weapons that a member of our military can. A private citizen (currently in some states) can own a semi-automatic rifle with a thirty plus capacity magazine. The weapons our infantry carry are fully automatic and many of them are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute. The Founding Fathers would probably think that if a soldier of a standing army can use a weapon a Private Citizen should be allowed to keep and bear the same weapon.
Checks and balances played a huge part in the way our Constitution was written and adopted. Even though our armed forces have vastly superior weapons to those owned by Private Citizens the NUMBER of ARMED PRIVATE CITIZENS is exponentially larger than the number or our armed forces. Check and Balance. Remove arms from the hands of Citizens and the danger of a tyrannical government increases by a huge factor.
GL2
Hyperbole and rhetoric.
This isn't REALLY about checks & balances. Be honest. You love guns because you love guns. And because you have hero fantasies of being that "good guy with a gun" on that sweet, sweet day that a "bad guy with a gun" makes the mistake of going ahead and making your day.
You don't love guns because they protect you from a tyrannical government. That's the company line fed to you by the NRA and the gun manufacturers, and one that gun advocates like to throw out there to derail debates and distract from the discussion about the gun violence problem in this country.
The laws you're referring to did prohibit the concealed carry of firearms, but not the open carry of firearms. The reasoning was the good guys had no problem carrying their guns openly and only the bad guys would have a need to conceal a gun. Fast forward to today in states like Pennsylvania where open carry is legal, open carriers are sometimes subjected to police harassment because some members of the general public just assumes that anyone carrying a gun who is not wearing a police uniform must be a criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badfish740
I have no desire to wade into your debate, just pointing out that you were misrepresenting 19th century laws banning the carrying of concealed firearms. Carry on.
EBWick wasn't misrepresenting anything.
All s/he said was "concealed weapons were the hallmarks of criminals, not law-abiding citizens".
That's basically exactly what you said: "good guys had no problem carrying their guns openly and only the bad guys would have a need to conceal a gun".
The whole issue of the need/desire for concealed carry today...in part, presumably, because open carry citizens are "harassed" (profiled)...is a separate issue and one that you brought up.
I love that law abiding citizens are big fans of profiling in general...until they are the ones being profiled.
I love that law abiding citizens are big fans of profiling in general...until they are the ones being profiled.
Profiling of law abiding citizens was not right when the New Jersey State Police did it to law abiding black motorists on the Turnpike, nor was it right when the NYPD did it to law abiding Muslims in and around New York City. Tell me again how I support profiling of others? I'm guessing that gun owners fit into a nice neat stereotype for you. White, middle class, racist, Republican, and hypocritical. You've certainly got me pegged on the first two counts, but the last three are pretty far off.
Profiling of law abiding citizens was not right when the New Jersey State Police did it to law abiding black motorists on the Turnpike, nor was it right when the NYPD did it to law abiding Muslims in and around New York City. Tell me again how I support profiling of others? I'm guessing that gun owners fit into a nice neat stereotype for you. White, middle class, racist, Republican, and hypocritical. You've certainly got me pegged on the first two counts, but the last three are pretty far off.
What IS this?
I've got you pegged? When did I peg you? I never assumed, or said, you were white, middle class, racist or even Republican. In fact, I never said ONE thing about Republicans or Democrats in this thread at all. NOT ONE. Use the "Search this Thread" tool. Criticizing the NRA and the gun lobby doesn't equal being anti Republican. Never said anything about white people either. But thanks for divulging that you're white and middle class. I don't know what that has to do with anything. I guess you think I'm clueless enough to think it's only white people, whether cops or plain old law abiding citizens, doing the profiling.
FYI, I am one of the people on this forum who calls others out for playing the "racist white people" card.
Because I am pro gun control, you assume I have a beef with Republicans and that I assume they must be racist and white.
Are you sure you don't do at least a little profiling?
Guess what. I lean right on some issues. I am also a Chris Christie fan. SURPRISE!
We all do a little profiling. Like it or not, law abiding gun owners are not immune. A law abiding citizen who open carries obviously is not carrying to go shoot some ducks. It's for self protection against whatever picture of the NOT law abiding citizen s/he has in his/her head, and that picture involves race, age, gender, body type, style of clothes, piercings, tattoos, facial hair, etc. etc. The picture in their head probably does not look like Betty White or Urkel.
First of all, no. I am not "willing to throw away" the 2nd Amendment. This is divisive hyperbole. Legislation calling for broader gun "control" does not equal gun "ban". I, and other people in this thread, have said it several times now.
A gun ban is not the only way to violate the Second Amendment. If you've decided there's no restriction in principle to any given gun regulation and that only pragmatic considerations should be taken into account, you've "thrown away" the Second Amendment; the right to keep and bear arms is no longer a consideration.
Quote:
But whether "some" children, or 6,000 children, it's still not all about "the children" either. How condescending to reduce it down to people clutching their pearls over The Children.
Since that's exactly what you were doing in post #142 ("A few dead kids every year is worth your 2nd Amendment "rights"? A few dead kids isn't such a big deal? Tell that to Brandon Holt's family, or even to the family of the poor kid who accidentally shot him. "), there's no "reduction", merely pointing out the tactics being used.
Quote:
Why does the U.S. have such a high number of guns, the most on the planet, in circulation among the general population?
Why does it matter? Why would I have any problem with a people exercising their right to keep and bear arms?
Quote:
A valid argument for SCOTUS would not be along the lines of, "Well, the 2nd Amendment has the same date on top of it as the 1st Amendment, and nobody wants to change the 1st Amendment, so we shouldn't mess with the 2nd at all either."
You're not SCOTUS, though. SCOTUS has not said the Second Amendment is "outdated". You have. IMO, the claim that the 2nd amendment is "outdated" isn't valid in the first place. It's a claim without substance, an attempt to simply wave away the issue.
Quote:
The technological advances for speech and press are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Not really. If technological progress renders the 2nd amendment outdated, why wouldn't it render the 1st amendment just as outdated? If you use an argument which seems to apply equally well to the 1st amendment as the 2nd, you either have to demonstrate the difference or accept the consequence that the 1st amendment is equally outdated. And no, that guns can be used to kill directly isn't a difference, because they had that very same property in 1781 as well.
Quote:
I'm sure the founding fathers foresaw technological progress. But do you seriously assert that the founding fathers would have intended the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of any "law abiding" ("law abiding" so far, keep your fingers crossed, but no guarantees) citizen to buy an AR-15 at a gun show?
I did no such thing. I said carrying a concealed weapon back then was illegal and now it's some awesome "gun rights" issue by the gun lovers. I made no reference at all to open carry.
I do not like seeing average Joes walking around strapped when I'm in Gunnut-ville, Pennsylvania either.
I can think of two reasons to carry concealed: 1. Make the Bad Guys guess who is armed and who isn't. 2. To keep whiny control freaks from blowing a gasket when they see a Private Citizen carrying in the open.
I think reason #1 makes a lot of sense and everyone benefits because it keeps the Bad Guys guessing. As far as #2: I could care less if some candy as*ed puke that doesn't have the balls to defend his family is offended by me carrying my weapon in plain sight.
I can think of two reasons to carry concealed: 1. Make the Bad Guys guess who is armed and who isn't. 2. To keep whiny control freaks from blowing a gasket when they see a Private Citizen carrying in the open.
I think reason #1 makes a lot of sense and everyone benefits because it keeps the Bad Guys guessing. As far as #2: I could care less if some candy as*ed puke that doesn't have the balls to defend his family is offended by me carrying my weapon in plain sight.
GL2
Wow. Nebraska must be a bigger hellhole than I ever imagined. Good luck with being scared of your own shadow out there.
My dad grew up in the South Bronx where it might've been a good idea to carry a gun. Guess what - nobody he grew up with did. They duked it out, maybe a pool cue here & there to teach someone a lesson. You turds wouldn't last a day with your big, bad Yosemite Sam guns because they'd sniff out your fear and jump your ass when you least expected it any way.
A gun ban is not the only way to violate the Second Amendment. If you've decided there's no restriction in principle to any given gun regulation and that only pragmatic considerations should be taken into account, you've "thrown away" the Second Amendment; the right to keep and bear arms is no longer a consideration.
Since that's exactly what you were doing in post #142 ("A few dead kids every year is worth your 2nd Amendment "rights"? A few dead kids isn't such a big deal? Tell that to Brandon Holt's family, or even to the family of the poor kid who accidentally shot him. "), there's no "reduction", merely pointing out the tactics being used.
Why does it matter? Why would I have any problem with a people exercising their right to keep and bear arms?
You're not SCOTUS, though. SCOTUS has not said the Second Amendment is "outdated". You have. IMO, the claim that the 2nd amendment is "outdated" isn't valid in the first place. It's a claim without substance, an attempt to simply wave away the issue.
Not really. If technological progress renders the 2nd amendment outdated, why wouldn't it render the 1st amendment just as outdated? If you use an argument which seems to apply equally well to the 1st amendment as the 2nd, you either have to demonstrate the difference or accept the consequence that the 1st amendment is equally outdated. And no, that guns can be used to kill directly isn't a difference, because they had that very same property in 1781 as well.
Absolutely.
Stalemate.
I think we have to agree to disagree. Believe it or not, even though I will never agree with you on some points, I can respect your point of view. I also respect how you structure your arguments, and I can even respect the logic behind your arguments even if I don't agree. Same goes for some of the other people participating in this thread.
Good debate, mate.
And now I'm out. Peace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm guessing that gun owners fit into a nice neat stereotype for you. White, middle class, racist, Republican, and hypocritical. You've certainly got me pegged on the first two counts, but the last three are pretty far off.
