Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

I know the Axis of Time trilogy is available in North America (but with Amazon I suppose that's redundant), some of the quirky bits might not make sense to a North American reader because he does make some political jokes which are situated in Australia but there's a lot that will be picked up (the name of one of the important naval vessels will cause a chuckle).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Time - careful of spoilers.

 

[Ravi]

Ack! I'm afraid of spoilers...how about if I don't understand I ask you?

 

[Diuretic]

Ack! I'm afraid of spoilers...how about if I don't understand I ask you?

Please feel free - I'll do my best to explain. However even if the Australian references are a bit obscure for a North American reader they won't ruin the story for you, Birmingham, I suspect, wrote the trilogy with his eye on the North American market and perhaps a film or even mini-series, so it's quite digestible.

 

[ReillyT]

Does anyone have any idea what the purple or green dots after each person's username signifies?

 

[BrianH]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cMIVNntHs[/ame]

why people need automatic weapons....The police didn't even have them at this time...THey had to borrow them from a gun shop.
No one was stopping these criminals from running into someone's house and holding them hostage, or killing them...it was just luck that they didn't.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone have any idea what the purple or green dots after each person's username signifies?

Hover your cursor over them and you'll see.

 

[ReillyT]

Hover your cursor over them and you'll see.

Thank you.

 

[Bern80]

I'm arguing that a rifle, shotgun or pistol not being fully automatic is needed for recreational shooting, yes. I'm arguing that a fully automatic weapon isn't needed for recreational shooting. That's not what it's designed for. It's designed for killing people.

Regarding the history. That's interesting but not relevant to the discussion.

You do understand how completely arbitrary that distinciton is I hope.

 

[Bern80]

So why did Kalashnikov invent his eponymous firearm?

I didn't characterise recreational shooting as a need. I said it's a want. The need appears when the want has to be satisfied and it can only be satisfied by a firearm, thus the want for recreational shooting needs a firearm to be satisfied.

And my want to shoot an automatic at a range, BY YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENT, requires ownership of automatic weapon to be satisified.

 

[Bern80]

I'll take questions now. Those of you who want to discuss my views on self defence please ask away. Those of you who want to keep discussing my views on fully automatic weapons please ask away. Those of you who are having conversations with each other about my views go ahead but if you've got a point then please feel free to ask directly. I won't bite

I did (not really in the form of a question I gues) in post 608. Still waiting.

 

[LOki]

I don't really give a shit about gun control, but I have been paying some attention to this thread, and it seems to me that there has been an almost intense effort to misunderstand Diuretic's basic argument.

I haven't.

If I have read him right - and I am pretty sure that I have the gist of it - his argument is relatively simple and wholly reasonable.

I'm game, let's check into it...

1. People only need (generally) automatic weapons to satisfy wants (such as range shooting).

No. "Wants (such as range shooting)" are not the only needs that are satisfied by the ownership of automatic weapons. Consider security in their capacity to defend their families, their property, their neighbors, their lives and their liberties from any aggressor.

They do not (generally) need automatic weapons for self-defense.

They do not (generally) need fire extingushers either; but that is no reason to bar people from having them.

They may need some level of weaponry more lethal than a club (e.g., a handgun), but they really don't need automatic weapons.

[People can disagree with this, or take issue with the "generally" aspect of it, but really, the idea that it is often (or hardly ever) the case that in the US a person's existence rests on their ability to procure or possess an automatic weapon is silly. I am not saying it never happens, but I am saying it almost never happens.]

Fine. Demonstrate that because people don't "generally" need fully automatic weapons for self defense, barring people from having fully automatic weapons, when they do need fully automatic weapons for self defense, is "wholly reasonable".

2. Since autos aren't needed in this sense (e.g., the way that food is needed - for survival) one should subject them to a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether this "want" (for the possession of automatic weapons) should be permitted.

When you need a fully automatic weapon to defend your life, then you certainly need it in the same urgent (or more so) manner you need food to survive.

And since the cost of people (in general) owning fully automatic weapons is nothing, and the benefit is the enhanced capacity to defend their families, their property, their neighbors, their lives and their liberties, there is no reason to (generally) bar people from owning them.

Perhaps what you're driving at is that since people "generally" have shot guns for self defense, they don't "specifically" need fully automatic weapons--just like people don't "specifically" need food, such a bread, so let them eat cake, right?

(BTW: I like pie.)

I am guessing that Diuretic feels that automatic weapons don't pass this threshold.

I object to Diuretic's insistence that his assessment of my needs is more valid than my own assessment of my needs--let him eat fucking cake. I might be arguing that I think Diuretic "needs" a fully automatic weapon just as much as I do, but I'm NOT telling him to own one.

I am inclined to agree,...

Then perhaps you're an authoritarian douche-bag too.

...although honestly, since owners are frequently the people shot with their own weapons,...

Frequently?

...I don't give a shit.

Well, perhaps you're not an authoritarian douche-bag.

His argument if I haven't gotten it wrong (and please forgive me if I have Diuretic) is neither illogical, nor silly.

It's not silly--I've been taking it seriously. The logic of it is suspect.

It is based upon a set of values. It is based on an evalution of benefits and detriments. However, so are almost all arguments.

It's based upon desperate rationalizations for allowing regular folks to be vulnerable to better armed predators.

How do you survive in the world?

Just fine. Thanks for your concern!

This is happening to you all the time.

If it is, it's repugnant (and irrelevent to my survival) all those times too.

The government tells you that you don't need cocaine, nuclear devices, fireworks, anthrax, teenage hookers, child pornography, etc.

Fine. In all those cases cited, repugnant.

How do you manage to deal with all this control?

I manage fine. Thanks again! And though I hold a greater amount of resentment about "all this control" than the sheeple, console yourself that I enjoy a certain kind of contentment in self sufficiency and self reliance that the controllers can't provide, and are just a little bit afraid of.

I feel like you have been pretty clear the whole time. I don't expect my efforts to meet with any greater success.

I think you have it wrong, and are unclear. What Diuretic has really been saying is that HE wants other people to not have fully automatic firearms, and this "want" of his should superceed the "wants" and "needs" of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fallacy of the argument that some fail to grasp here is that if Diuretic or ReillyT or anybody else says that (A) exists, that does not automatically presume that he or they are denying that (B) also exists.

The fact that the only reason somebody would NEED a fully automatic weapon for anything other than target shooting now, at this precise moment in time, does not extrapolate into a conviction that a fully automatic weapon will NEVER ever be a need.

The fact that somebody observes that I do not NEED a fire extinguisher today does not automatically mean that I won't NEED a fire extinguisher tomorrow.

Where the fully automatic weapon gets absurd is to say that I NEED one in case there is a major civil uprising or whatever in which it will be necessary. It is accurate to say that I WANT one as insurance against such an unlikely event. You might also WANT a fire hydrant outside your front door and a five inch hose close by in the event that you might NEED that to fight a major fire in your home some day, but to say that you NEED that today simply isn't true. You might NEED it for peace of mind; but you don't NEED it to fight a fire if there is no fire.

To accuse a person of saying one thing when they are in fact saying something else creates a circular argument that begins to look really silly even when tempers flare.

This whole debate would make a whole lot more sense to me if it focused on what is prudent for the law to allow and/or regulate when it comes to unusual high powered weaponry or whether such weaponry should be regulated at all and how that applies to the Second Amendment.

 

[Diuretic]

Loki, a question. Do you consider that the 2nd Amendment should be limited in its application in any way?

On edit - Foxfyre - I look to have been typing my response at the same time you posted yours. I think I may have duplicated your intent.

 

[Ravi]

The fallacy of the argument that some fail to grasp here is that if Diuretic or ReillyT or anybody else says that (A) exists, that does not automatically presume that he or they are denying that (B) also exists.

The fact that the only reason somebody would NEED a fully automatic weapon for anything other than target shooting now, at this precise moment in time, does not extrapolate into a conviction that a fully automatic weapon will NEVER ever be a need.

The fact that somebody observes that I do not NEED a fire extinguisher today does not automatically mean that I won't NEED a fire extinguisher tomorrow.

Where the fully automatic weapon gets absurd is to say that I NEED one in case there is a major civil uprising or whatever in which it will be necessary. It is accurate to say that I WANT one as insurance against such an unlikely event. You might also WANT a fire hydrant outside your front door and a five inch hose close by in the event that you might NEED that to fight a major fire in your home some day, but to say that you NEED that today simply isn't true. You might NEED it for peace of mind; but you don't NEED it to fight a fire if there is no fire.

To accuse a person of saying one thing when they are in fact saying something else creates a circular argument that begins to look really silly even when tempers flare.

This whole debate would make a whole lot more sense to me if it focused on what is prudent for the law to allow and/or regulate when it comes to unusual high powered weaponry or whether such weaponry should be regulated at all and how that applies to the Second Amendment.

Fire extinguishers and fire hydrants are made to save lives and property. Automatic weapons are not. Bad analogy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fire extinguishers and fire hydrants are made to save lives and property. Automatic weapons are not. Bad analogy.

No, it is perfect. The argument is that "need" applies. That the Government provides the function that eliminates the need.

That is true of fire extinguishers if it is true of weapons.

 

[Diuretic]

I'll have to disagree Ravir. The analogy is apt. For it to work it doesn't require the purpose of the two objects to be the same, what's important is the relationship between an object, its purpose and the probability of use. I don't mean to sound like my former philosophy professor but that's just how I see it.

 

[Ravi]

You're probably right and I'm just not thinking straight. Not an unusual event.

Still, we wouldn't NEED automatics to battle criminals and/or bad governments that had them if the criminals didn't have them. Because, at least where I live, the justification to give them to the cops is because the criminals have them. Why not just find a way to eliminate them from the criminal population? Or is that as impossible as preventing fires from ever starting?

And then when they get shoulder held rocket launchers (the criminals and the cops), do we get them as well?

 

[LOki]

Loki, a question. Do you consider that the 2nd Amendment should be limited in its application in any way?

On edit - Foxfyre - I look to have been typing my response at the same time you posted yours. I think I may have duplicated your intent.

I thought you had no interest in the 2nd Amendment.

"...limited in its application in any way?"

ANY?

This is what you seek? Fine.

"Any", I'll admit, is a pretty broad adjective to fill with an argument, but I'm feeling game for it--but I'll insist that you have to accept and stick to the built in limitations of the 2nd, if you insist I have to accept and stick to the encompassing enormity of the word "any."

This means that you can't counter as if "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means, or even remotely suggests that, "...the right of the people to indiscriminantly spray bullets at whatever and whoever they wish, shall not be infringed."

Fair?

The fallacy of the argument that some fail to grasp here is that if Diuretic or ReillyT or anybody else says that (A) exists, that does not automatically presume that he or they are denying that (B) also exists.

The fact that the only reason somebody would NEED a fully automatic weapon for anything other than target shooting now, at this precise moment in time, does not extrapolate into a conviction that a fully automatic weapon will NEVER ever be a need.

The fact that somebody observes that I do not NEED a fire extinguisher today does not automatically mean that I won't NEED a fire extinguisher tomorrow.

I can stipulate to this if it helps to pin down how "need" is to be used in the course of discussion.

Where the fully automatic weapon gets absurd is to say that I NEED one in case there is a major civil uprising or whatever in which it will be necessary. It is accurate to say that I WANT one as insurance against such an unlikely event. You might also WANT a fire hydrant outside your front door and a five inch hose close by in the event that you might NEED that to fight a major fire in your home some day, but to say that you NEED that today simply isn't true. You might NEED it for peace of mind; but you don't NEED it to fight a fire if there is no fire.

To accuse a person of saying one thing when they are in fact saying something else creates a circular argument that begins to look really silly even when tempers flare.

Yes, well, when one uses the term "need" in any of it's capacities to affirm one's position while limiting it's use when others use it to attack that position, goes beyond disingenuously creating a circular argument. Again, if you want to pin "need" down, that will work for me--it will actually work better for my argument; since my position, where "needs to have" is not relevent to "should have", is internally consistent.

This whole debate would make a whole lot more sense to me if it focused on what is prudent for the law to allow and/or regulate when it comes to unusual high powered weaponry or whether such weaponry should be regulated at all and how that applies to the Second Amendment.

Well then, if the above conditions are fair, then I'll argue that within the jurisdiction of the 2nd Amendment, and the U.S. constitution, the government is prohibited from, and has no business infringing upon the right of people to keep and bear any kind of arm.

How about that?

 

[Diuretic]

I'm fine that those conditions.

I know the 2nd Amendment has been subject to much law from the US Supreme Court but I'm ignorant of it. So, I have no expertise in arguing precedent. But I'll suggest this, that the right to bear arms can be limited by legislative instrument. Furthermore, it should be limited.

So I suppose the first statement is about the nature of a right and that any right has limitations. The second is a normative statement but consistent with my first statement.

We know the cases of someone yelling fire in the crowded theatre and the dictum of my right to swing my arm ends at your nose. That's essentially my argument for the idea that all rights are subject to limitation, the limitation should be minimal though, as minimal as possible. The limits are where the arguments lie.

My second statement meshes with the first one in that I believe that reasonable limitations on the private ownership of firearms can be put in place on the basis of public safety.

I'm not referring to my previous "need" argument here and I intend to quarantine that and hopefully stick to my two statements as outlined.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And here we get to it. The Government does have a right and a responsibility to limit our "rights" So long as the limits are reasonable and needed.

I happen to agree that the Government can in fact limit our rights to fully automatic weapons. I see it as a reasonable and prudent limitation based on situation that presented itself when the Thompson submachine gun became the problem it did.

I am not sure I agree that those States that outlaw them completely are correct, I see that as unreasonable and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

To be clear, fully automatic weapons require a Federal license , they require that the storage location of the weapon be posted to the Government and updated when ever it changes and the Government must be informed if you intend to take the weapon across State lines. These are reasonable restrictions.