ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2nd amendment issues , gun violence

Reply
Old 12th August 2019, 09:14 AM   #121
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, yeah, you definitely do want to avoid the subject of whether or not "personal protection" is selfish, if said "personal protection" involves owning or carrying a gun, which it does in the context of the article you linked to and the specific quote you posted. Seems an odd choice on your part to post something you wanted to evade discussion of, but each to their own.
Actually I said personal protection in general can be selfless. This includes doing so with guns. I don't see how I'm being evasive at all.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:17 AM   #122
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I know it's an opinion piece. But the writer is trying to convince us that some states are exempt from gun registration requirements; something he should not be doing since it is false.
Of course nationally very few guns need to be registered.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 10:31 AM   #123
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Actually I said personal protection in general can be selfless. This includes doing so with guns. I don't see how I'm being evasive at all.
No, what you did was post this quote "How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?" and respond to it with "Since when is personal protection selfish?", and then you have studiously avoided discussing whether the "personal protection" that is part of the "gun debate" is or is not selfish.

I mean, seriously, are you trying to have us believe that when the sentence quoted above was written that the author was talking equally about owning a gun and, say, putting your hands up in front of your face when someone is trying to punch you? I don't think you believe that any more than I do.

If you're telling the truth that you want to discuss this issue as it relates to guns, then why not address my post where I offered my opinions, which you only quoted 8 words of before dismissing it as "evasive" because it was talking about guns?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:20 PM   #124
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Cloud the issue all you want, but I think self protection is not always selfish.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:28 PM   #125
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Cloud the issue all you want, but I think self protection is not always selfish.
But does having guns make you safer? And of course your friends and relatives who are at risk of you shooting them? It would seem by statistics that having a gun is a bigger threat to you and yours than it reduces threats.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:32 PM   #126
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Universal background checks is a popular proposal, politically. As far as the reporting has shown, I don't see any reason to believe that any of our recent mass shooters would have failed a background check.
Wouldn't that depend on how comprehensive the background check was, and what items on the background checks showed up?

For example, I suggest the following should rule a person out from being allowed to own or use firearms

1. Any criminal conviction
2. Any conviction for drug use or possession
3. Under any legal restriction such as a trespass, stay-away or restraining order
4. Any conviction for a breach of firearms laws
5. Any conviction for domestic abuse

Under that list, 35% to 62% of spree shooters would not have been allowed to own a gun.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=62
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th August 2019 at 01:34 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:39 PM   #127
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
For example, I suggest the following should rule a person out from being allowed to own or use firearms

1. Any criminal conviction
2. Any conviction for drug use or possession
3. Under any legal restriction such as a trespass, stay-away or restraining order
4. Any conviction for a breach of firearms laws
5. Any conviction for domestic abuse
Doesn't #1 make #2-#5 redundant?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:12 PM   #128
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,211
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wouldn't that depend on how comprehensive the background check was, and what items on the background checks showed up?

For example, I suggest the following should rule a person out from being allowed to own or use firearms

1. Any criminal conviction
2. Any conviction for drug use or possession
3. Under any legal restriction such as a trespass, stay-away or restraining order
4. Any conviction for a breach of firearms laws
5. Any conviction for domestic abuse

Under that list, 35% to 62% of spree shooters would not have been allowed to own a gun.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=62
If you actually read the federal law, you'd discover that it's slightly more restrictive than your suggested list already.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 04:31 PM   #129
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,952
Re: Personal Protection...

On a related note, this is why the notorious Tyson tweet was so silly. Gun owners correctly note that the average person sucks at risk assessment and it's vanishingly unlikely we will be gunned down. So what's the number one reason people own guns? For protection, especially strangers. There are gun owners who "feel naked" if they're unarmed in public If they were truly interested in the safety of their family, they'd eat heart-healthy plant-based diets, exercise regularly, and wear a helmet at all times.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 05:30 PM   #130
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Doesn't #1 make #2-#5 redundant?
In some jurisdictions, depending on circumstances, domestic abuse is not a criminal statute.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 05:32 PM   #131
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
If you actually read the federal law, you'd discover that it's slightly more restrictive than your suggested list already.
Really? Then how did 1/3 of spree shooters manage to legally buy guns when they already had convictions?
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:26 PM   #132
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,058
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
If you actually read the federal law, you'd discover that it's slightly more restrictive than your suggested list already.
Google the "boyfriend loophole". Some domestic abuse does not trigger firearms restrictions.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:17 PM   #133
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wouldn't that depend on how comprehensive the background check was, and what items on the background checks showed up?

For example, I suggest the following should rule a person out from being allowed to own or use firearms

1. Any criminal conviction
2. Any conviction for drug use or possession
3. Under any legal restriction such as a trespass, stay-away or restraining order
4. Any conviction for a breach of firearms laws
5. Any conviction for domestic abuse

Under that list, 35% to 62% of spree shooters would not have been allowed to own a gun.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=62

How about DUI? Drunk people and guns do not mix well.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:38 PM   #134
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,693
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opini...ang/index.html
For a law like that to survive a constitutional challenge, the SC would have to re-interpret the 2nd amendment so that it reads as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 12:30 AM   #135
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Cloud the issue all you want, but I think self protection is not always selfish.
Addressing the issue directly is not clouding the issue. What you're doing, however, is continuing to avoid discussing the subject. Why are you unwilling to talk about this after you brought it up?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:25 AM   #136
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,952
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
For a law like that to survive a constitutional challenge, the SC would have to re-interpret the 2nd amendment so that it reads as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It'd take the memory of a proverbial goldfish to need to be reminded that they're still talking about the militia by the end of the sentence. And this sort of pathetic word-game non-argument is why Scalia was reduced to consulting dictionaries for his opinion in Heller rather than carefully researching the historical record (his "bear arms" claims are also incorrect.* The purpose of the amendment was to clarify earlier references in the Constitution to the militia, and ensure a limitation on federal power/standing armies. And that's how it was generally understood for almost two hundred years. The vaunted militias proved ineffective, a reality that became undeniable when the Brits set the capital ablaze. The Second Amendment was rescued from irrelevance by fanatical ideologues and hobbyists.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...?noredirect=on
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:57 AM   #137
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Besides which, the 2nd Amendment is an alteration of the original document of the Constitution.* If the Constitution can be altered, then the Constitution can be altered. So even if it did require the insertion of "in the Militia" into the 2nd Amendment, that in and of itself, shouldn't be a barrier.

*Albeit one that says something that was planned to be in the Constitution from the start - although that is not true of every Amendment, so the point is moot.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:04 AM   #138
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,693
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Besides which, the 2nd Amendment is an alteration of the original document of the Constitution.* If the Constitution can be altered, then the Constitution can be altered. So even if it did require the insertion of "in the Militia" into the 2nd Amendment, that in and of itself, shouldn't be a barrier.
The constitution doesn't have to be altered - just re-interpreted. The same way that "self incrimination" replaces "give testimony against himself" in the 5th even though the words are still the same.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:25 AM   #139
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 356
Since motor vehicles driven by stupid or otherwise mentally-unfit people cause deaths and maimings in numbers which are many orders of magnitude higher than those by similarly stupid or mentally-unfit people with firearms ever will, I suggest that legislative efforts (in the US or anywhere else) to save lives would be better be directed at the former issue.

Or is someone going to argue that everything that can be done about road safety has been done?
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:30 AM   #140
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The constitution doesn't have to be altered - just re-interpreted. The same way that "self incrimination" replaces "give testimony against himself" in the 5th even though the words are still the same.
I know. What I'm saying is that even if it did have to be altered, then so what? It's not been immutable from the moment it was written onwards.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:31 AM   #141
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,952
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Or is someone going to argue that everything that can be done about road safety has been done?
Is someone going to argue that we can't do both?
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:33 AM   #142
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Since motor vehicles driven by stupid or otherwise mentally-unfit people cause deaths and maimings in numbers which are many orders of magnitude higher than those by similarly stupid or mentally-unfit people with firearms ever will, I suggest that legislative efforts (in the US or anywhere else) to save lives would be better be directed at the former issue.

Or is someone going to argue that everything that can be done about road safety has been done?
If only you had to have a license to drive a vehicle, if only there were restrictions on what kinds of vehicles you could drive depending on the kind of licence you had, if only you had to take tests to ge these licenses, if only there were restrictions on who could have a license, if only licenses were frequently revoked, if only vehicle owners were required to have insurance, if only the police stopped people who were driving and checked their paperwork and tested them for whether they were intoxicated, and if only vehicles had a purpose other than killing things. Imagine that. What a time to be alive that would be.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 13th August 2019 at 02:36 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 02:49 AM   #143
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Incidentally, as of 2017 guns are actually responsible for more US deaths than cars are. 88% of Americans own a car. 22% of Americans own at least one gun.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:15 AM   #144
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,952
If each day Americans spent half as much time handling guns as we did in our cars, then this would be the safest country on earth.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 04:35 AM   #145
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If only you had to have a license to drive a vehicle, if only there were restrictions on what kinds of vehicles you could drive depending on the kind of licence you had, if only you had to take tests to ge these licenses, if only there were restrictions on who could have a license, if only licenses were frequently revoked, if only vehicle owners were required to have insurance, if only the police stopped people who were driving and checked their paperwork and tested them for whether they were intoxicated, and if only vehicles had a purpose other than killing things. Imagine that. What a time to be alive that would be.


Nail firmly and effectively hammered in the top of its head!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:10 PM   #146
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,211
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I really doubt that Washington, Jefferson or Adams intended that the average person make this assessment. Especially Jefferson and Adams. They were both in France in the days before the popular revolution. I highly recommend "Jefferson's Crème Brule". It's about Jefferson's time in Europe after the revolution.
Well, true. They were quite anti-democratic; so much so that I still find it amazing how much we all say how democratic we are.

I'll be sure to check that book out, thanks!


Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Really? Then how did 1/3 of spree shooters manage to legally buy guns when they already had convictions?
I don't know. However, my point is that the very things you called for are already in place. IOW, we *have* what you think would work. So maybe the behaviors cannot be effectively addressed with further refining laws (which I think is a typically useless statist response).


Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Google the "boyfriend loophole". Some domestic abuse does not trigger firearms restrictions.
That may be, but again the point is that it doesn't take a conviction of DV in order to trigger the law just an accusation which is more strict than what he wrote as a presumably good law.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:32 PM   #147
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 418
The 2nd amendment solution is the "well regulated" part.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 05:05 PM   #148
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,212
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
The 2nd amendment solution is the "well regulated" part.
Except for the part where they never actually bothered to limit the amendment after writing that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 03:16 AM   #149
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Since motor vehicles driven by stupid or otherwise mentally-unfit people cause deaths and maimings in numbers which are many orders of magnitude higher than those by similarly stupid or mentally-unfit people with firearms ever will, I suggest that legislative efforts (in the US or anywhere else) to save lives would be better be directed at the former issue.
Some evidence for that claim?
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:16 AM   #150
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Since motor vehicles driven by stupid or otherwise mentally-unfit people cause deaths and maimings in numbers which are many orders of magnitude higher than those by similarly stupid or mentally-unfit people with firearms ever will, I suggest that legislative efforts (in the US or anywhere else) to save lives would be better be directed at the former issue.
Well you just shot yourself in the foot there, since there are a LOT of motor vehicle regulations and laws.

Also, cars are not designed to kill.


ETA: Damn. Squeegee not only said it first but better.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:52 AM   #151
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,058
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well you just shot yourself in the foot there, since there are a LOT of motor vehicle regulations and laws.

Also, cars are not designed to kill.


ETA: Damn. Squeegee not only said it first but better.
Indeed - driver's licensing, motor vehicle manufacturing regulation (emissions, mandatory airbags, crumple zones, etc...), and vehicle registration are frequently cited as a potential model the regulation of firearms and firearms use and ownership. IsThisTheLife must be a newbie to the gun debate, he was making an argument in favor of gun control while trying to do the opposite.

Tip for IsThisTheLife (since you seem to be a newbie at this): The usual replay then is to say that owning and driving are privileges not cited as rights in the Constitution, but the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. That's an argument of limited effectiveness, as it assumes the constitution to be infallible, but if you want to make that argument we can tear it down as well.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 01:21 PM   #152
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,762
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Tip for IsThisTheLife (since you seem to be a newbie at this): The usual replay then is to say that owning and driving are privileges not cited as rights in the Constitution, but the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. That's an argument of limited effectiveness, as it assumes the constitution to be infallible, but if you want to make that argument we can tear it down as well.
A tip for you: No, the argument does't assume the Constitution is infallible, only that it is the law of the land. Implementing things that are unconstitutional in this instance opens the precedent to ignore it on other thins. Proponents of unconstitutional gun control should be arguing for Constitutional amendment first, instead of ignoring the primary document of law in the nation when it conflicts with their goals.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 01:47 PM   #153
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,058
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
A tip for you: No, the argument does't assume the Constitution is infallible, only that it is the law of the land. Implementing things that are unconstitutional in this instance opens the precedent to ignore it on other thins. Proponents of unconstitutional gun control should be arguing for Constitutional amendment first, instead of ignoring the primary document of law in the nation when it conflicts with their goals.
You're half right. Many do assume the constitution to be infallible. There are a good many fundamentalist preachers who claim it was divinely inspired. For them (and these are people with great political influence here) the U.S. Constitution really is the word of God.

That said, it is the law, but the 2nd allows for a great deal of regulation. Scalia details that on page 54 and 55 of the Heller majority opinion. I'll try to link to it later. The Heller decision did strike down some gun control, but the decision itself made it clear that the 2nd allows Congress wide latitude in the crafting of gun related regulations. It is very rare for gun control regulations to be struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 07:46 AM   #154
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
A tip for you: No, the argument does't assume the Constitution is infallible, only that it is the law of the land. Implementing things that are unconstitutional in this instance opens the precedent to ignore it on other thins. Proponents of unconstitutional gun control should be arguing for Constitutional amendment first, instead of ignoring the primary document of law in the nation when it conflicts with their goals.
Imagine the horror if a right explicated in the Constitution required personal registration, proof of such before the right was used, the legal inability of a citizen to transfer that right to others, governmental oversight when the right was used!

Golly, we would have to vote on it.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:42 PM   #155
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,693
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Imagine the horror if a right explicated in the Constitution required personal registration, proof of such before the right was used, the legal inability of a citizen to transfer that right to others, governmental oversight when the right was used!
Yep. The SC would never dare rule that denying somebody the right to bear arms because they didn't have a licence amounted to an "infringement" of that right.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 07:29 AM   #156
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,762
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Imagine the horror if a right explicated in the Constitution required personal registration, proof of such before the right was used, the legal inability of a citizen to transfer that right to others, governmental oversight when the right was used!

Golly, we would have to vote on it.
Nice straw.

Then make that argument. The 2nd amendment comes out when the talk is about banning firearms of all sorts entirely, which would definitely violate the heck out of the Constitution.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 07:31 AM   #157
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Here's the thing, if we're being warts and all honest.

I do think there are enough Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Lefties/Whatever that are uncomfortable with any level of private firearm ownership to be a... discusable factor in all this. I can't put an exact X percent of Y level on it, but a desire to totally ban firearms isn't some boogeyman that gun owners have pulled out of air.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 07:35 AM   #158
rockysmith76
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's the thing, if we're being warts and all honest.

I do think there are enough Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Lefties/Whatever that are uncomfortable with any level of private firearm ownership to be a... discusable factor in all this. I can't put an exact X percent of Y level on it, but a desire to totally ban firearms isn't some boogeyman that gun owners have pulled out of air.
Many of whom Fear Monger as much as the Right Wing does on other matters so it a thing, a very misguided thing sadly.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 09:01 AM   #159
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,933
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's the thing, if we're being warts and all honest.

I do think there are enough Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Lefties/Whatever that are uncomfortable with any level of private firearm ownership to be a... discusable factor in all this. I can't put an exact X percent of Y level on it, but a desire to totally ban firearms isn't some boogeyman that gun owners have pulled out of air.
Well, I'm only a casual observer of the US's gun culture so this is something I could easily have missed. Could you post an example of some notable organisation or group that is calling for a complete ban on all private ownership of firearms in the US?

To me that seems like a very extreme position. Off the top of my head I can't think of any country where all private ownership of firearms is forbidden, and a quick look on Wikipedia comes up with only 11 countries where that is the case, and most of those are small island nations.

Which isn't to say that I don't believe that it may be the case. There are, after all, plenty of examples of groups or organisations who do advocate for extreme positions. But it is one that I don't remember seeing espoused by any group in the US, so would definitely appreciate being pointed in the direction of one.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 09:26 AM   #160
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In some jurisdictions, depending on circumstances, domestic abuse is not a criminal statute.
It's either a misdemeanor or a felony everywhere AFAIK.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.