Author Topic: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation  (Read 13756 times)

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2013, 12:25:11 PM »
Go away troll, your arguments are those of a child unwilling to accept the fact that our Nation was built on the belief in God.

I never asked for proof that "our Nation was built on the belief in God":

Quote
Where is the scientific evidence for a creator?  And please qualify "endowed".

I ask for 1. scientific evidence that said creator exists (not that the founders believed in one) and 2. a qualification of precisely how you can be "endowed" with rights.  Your argument from authority has nothing to do with the point.  It also does nothing to repudiate the obvious observation that your rights are not absolute; you cannot libel, you cannot slander, if you break the law you can lose your liberty.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60999
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2013, 01:01:07 PM »
I never asked for proof that "our Nation was built on the belief in God":

I ask for 1. scientific evidence that said creator exists (not that the founders believed in one) and 2. a qualification of precisely how you can be "endowed" with rights.  Your argument from authority has nothing to do with the point.  It also does nothing to repudiate the obvious observation that your rights are not absolute; you cannot libel, you cannot slander, if you break the law you can lose your liberty.
Like I give a damn what you want, this is not the Religion forum, all our inalienable Rights are based on the belief they were granted by God.
Do you care to dispute that?
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2013, 01:08:34 PM »
Like I give a damn what you want, this is not the Religion forum,

You brought up a creator.

Quote
all our inalienable Rights are based on the belief they were granted by God.

That the founders were deists is a point you brought up that I neither contested or found relevant to my point.  What's relevant is your claim that they are inalienable...

And they are not inalienable.  You can go to jail.  In Jefferson's time they had executions.  Jefferson himself supported the death penalty, he did not believe that rights were literally inalienable.  It was more symbolic, and thus gun control does not violate any fundamental principle.  Arguably banning all guns unconditionally would.  That's not what the mainstream liberals are advocating.

Quote
Do you care to dispute that?

Yes.  You cannot commit libel.  Therefore your rights are not absolute.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60999
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2013, 02:13:13 PM »
You brought up a creator.
Which explained our Rights DO NOT come from Govt!
Quote
That the founders were deists is a point you brought up that I neither contested or found relevant to my point.  What's relevant is your claim that they are inalienable...

And they are not inalienable.  You can go to jail.  In Jefferson's time they had executions.  Jefferson himself supported the death penalty, he did not believe that rights were literally inalienable.  It was more symbolic, and thus gun control does not violate any fundamental principle.  Arguably banning all guns unconditionally would.  That's not what the mainstream liberals are advocating.

Yes.  You cannot commit libel.  Therefore your rights are not absolute.
You do not have the right of slander, so no, it has nothing to do with the First.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2013, 02:25:23 PM »
Which explained our Rights DO NOT come from Govt!

What?  Just because the founders believed in a creator doesn't mean a creator existed.

And even if you believe otherwise, for all intents and purposes we get rights from our legal system.  Think about it; otherwise why are lawyers on both sides furiously debating issues to the Supreme Court, why are you trying to influence Congress's decisions, why are there NRA lobbyists in the government, do you see how you can claim that your rights are technically derived from a creator (which they are not btw), but the practical outcome is that for 99.9999% of human history such rights simply did not manifest. 

Quote
You do not have the right of slander, so no, it has nothing to do with the First.

Sure it does.  Your freedom of speech ends where you cause objective harm to someone else.  Even your protection from "involuntary labor" is technically superseded in times of war.  So while it's unconstitutional to ban guns, how is it unconstitutional to enact gun control if you can establish empirically that such measures promote the general welfare?

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60999
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2013, 03:26:42 PM »
What?  Just because the founders believed in a creator doesn't mean a creator existed.

And even if you believe otherwise, for all intents and purposes we get rights from our legal system.  Think about it; otherwise why are lawyers on both sides furiously debating issues to the Supreme Court, why are you trying to influence Congress's decisions, why are there NRA lobbyists in the government, do you see how you can claim that your rights are technically derived from a creator (which they are not btw), but the practical outcome is that for 99.9999% of human history such rights simply did not manifest. 
Sure we do, but not the unalienable ones, those were set before Govt was established.
Learn your history son.
Quote
Sure it does.  Your freedom of speech ends where you cause objective harm to someone else.  Even your protection from "involuntary labor" is technically superseded in times of war.  So while it's unconstitutional to ban guns, how is it unconstitutional to enact gun control if you can establish empirically that such measures promote the general welfare?
Lying to hurt someone is not covered under free speech.
Prove it is!
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2013, 03:30:37 PM »
Sure we do, but not the unalienable ones, those were set before Govt was established.

Tell that to slaves living in the Roman Empire; heck, tell that to slaves living in the United States.  The foundation of our rights was a gradual, earthly progress happening at various rates in various societies.  Once again, for all intents and purposes we find our rights in law.

Quote
Learn your history son. Lying to hurt someone is not covered under free speech.
Prove it is!

That's my entire point! "free speech" does not mean "absolute right to say anything at any time".  And so "right to bear arms" does not mean "absolute right to bear arms with no gun control or legislation".

Offline kopema

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2013, 06:40:03 PM »
Did you ever notice how morons seem to use the word "scientific" a LOT more than normal people do?

This one's like a five-year-old who just learned a new word and desperately wants to sound smart.
‘‘It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.’’

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60999
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2013, 06:47:53 PM »
Tell that to slaves living in the Roman Empire; heck, tell that to slaves living in the United States.  The foundation of our rights was a gradual, earthly progress happening at various rates in various societies.  Once again, for all intents and purposes we find our rights in law.
Moving the goal post back a millennium I see?
We're talking about the US, remember?
That's my entire point! "free speech" does not mean "absolute right to say anything at any time".  And so "right to bear arms" does not mean "absolute right to bear arms with no gun control or legislation".
You have the Right of free speech, you do not have the Right to trample others Rights with falsities.
Am I getting through that thick skull of yours yet?
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2013, 07:29:32 PM »
Moving the goal post back a millennium I see?
We're talking about the US, remember?

I love how you only address one example and ignore the other that perfectly fits your criteria; slavery was still an institution when the declaration was declared.  The signing did not cause your creator to suddenly swoop in and free them; it took a series of political, social and technological developments quite clearly reducible to human activities and eventually a bloody civil war to emancipate them.  For all intents and purposes we fought for our rights and ensured them by law, not by a divine message.  Appealing to the rhetoric of a fallible human document does not dictate reality.

Quote
You have the Right of free speech, you do not have the Right to trample others Rights with falsities.
Am I getting through that thick skull of yours yet?

Yet again you tailor your rebuttal to refute one example but not the other.  The draft technically violates the 13th amendment, but your rights are suspended for the good of society in controlled circumstances.  Do you understand that these rights are so obviously not magical and unalienable?

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2013, 07:34:53 PM »
:lol: That's not what an ad hominem is.  "Ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings".   :rolleyes:

Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2013, 07:37:23 PM »
Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.

LOL, that's like claiming "thank you" is really an order with the object being the person you're talking to.  The commonly used meaning of the latin phrase beyond its literal translation is an abbreviation of "argumentum ad hominem" (note the argumentum cut for brevity that lays waste to your interpretation).

Of course, your definition is pointless anyway since "insults" (as though I really made any worse than yours) do not invalidate the logic of an argument.  That would be a style over substance distortion.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to actually respond to my arguments instead of the civility in which I phrase them?

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2013, 07:49:03 PM »
LOL, that's like claiming "thank you" is really an order with the object being the person you're talking to.  The commonly used meaning of the latin phrase beyond its literal translation is an abbreviation of "argumentum ad hominem" (note the argumentum cut for brevity that lays waste to your interpretation).

Of course, your definition is pointless anyway since "insults" (as though I really made any worse than yours) do not invalidate the logic of an argument.  That would be a style over substance distortion.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to actually respond to my arguments instead of the civility in which I phrase them?

Unless and until you can manage some semblance of civility -- something that seems to have escaped you to date -- no, I don't. Arguing with a bundle of mindless razor blades doesn't appeal to me.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2013, 07:52:28 PM »
Unless and until you can manage some semblance of civility -- something that seems to have escaped you to date -- no, I don't. Arguing with a bundle of mindless razor blades doesn't appeal to me.

Interesting.  In my creationist questions I end my OP with:

Quote
I would invite any civil/rational responses.  Thank you.

In your response you include:

Quote
I don't care to answer your inquiries by the numbers. Sorry if that perturbs you. (Oops! THAT was a lie!)

Quote
Your blather makes me tired.

Now please feel free to assert that I am somehow being the meanie here.

Offline kopema

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
Re: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Legislation
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2013, 09:28:39 PM »
Quote
That's not what an ad hominem is.  "Ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings".
Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.

That's what WE do.  If someone's a blithering idiot, you call him a blithering idiot while making as much fun as you can manage of his rantings.

He does it the opposite way around.  He keeps deeming every crazy ass theological argument he comes up with "scientific," and keeps calling everyone else "unscientific" because we all think everything he says is insane gibberish. 

On an incredibly vague level, he knows that "science" is something that smart people do.  But all he can really grasp is that feeling; the word itself he merely presses into service to express the only concepts the subjective intellect will ever understand: self-aggrandizement; infantile insult; or preferably both at once.

I realize this is quite a stretch, but try for a second to imagine a fully-grown person with a triple-digit IQ trying to win an argument by saying: "I'm more scientific than you!"  Don't feel too bad if you can't picture that scene -- no one can.
‘‘It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.’’

- Justice Robert H. Jackson

 

Powered by EzPortal