Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?

To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute.  Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander.  Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law.  Not even the 13 amendment is absolute.  In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.

So yes, you have the right to own a gun.  This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms.  NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats.  No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional?  Are you that enamored with hunting?  Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?

As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good?  Look at the empirical data and studies.  If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment.  If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted.  Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?

To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute.  Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander.  Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law.  Not even the 13 amendment is absolute.  In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.

So yes, you have the right to own a gun.  This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms.  NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats.  No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional?  Are you that enamored with hunting?  Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?

As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good?  Look at the empirical data and studies.  If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment.  If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted.  Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?

Please show us one -- just one -- proposed or enacted gun law that has saved a single life or prevented a single crime.

Just one.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:06:52 AM
Please show us one -- just one -- proposed or enacted gun law that has saved a single life or prevented a single crime.

Just one.

Way to miss the point.  I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
Way to miss the point.  I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.

Unalienable rights. Does that mean anything to an atheist?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
Way to miss the point.  I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.

Kiss my ass. And yes, that's an ad hominem directed at you. You're not exactly shy about passing them about; why should I be when dealing with you?

You're missing the point by miles. The original ten amendments to the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- were statements of rights that everybody already understood and accepted. The Second Amendment was put in there in response to acts the British had taken to confiscate muskets and such from colonists. All ten of the first ten amendments were written in response to concerns among the independent states that a federal government might try to do just exactly what it's been trying to do for about 200 years -- seize power from the states and from the people.

The original Bill of Rights was written as an assurance to the individual states that common sense would be observed. The first ten amendments weren't included in the original Constitution because the framers never conceived that the rights described in them could ever be doubted. It was like this: "Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution that says a man has the right to own a gun? Who is stupid enough to think otherwise?" But the states insisted, and the government complied, and now we have ten REALLY good amendments to argue about.

Now, getting back the the point, I'll ask you again to produce for me just one instance where a gun law saved lives. I'm asking because if you can't provide that simple thing, all 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws now on the books are by definition useless.

Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 11:33:16 AM
Unalienable rights.

You can't libel, you can't slander.  Your rights are already qualified.

QuoteDoes that mean anything to an atheist?

Well, this is supposed to be a "fact based" discussion board; where's the scientific evidence for a deity?

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:38:17 AM
Kiss my ass. And yes, that's an ad hominem directed at you. You're not exactly shy about passing them about; why should I be when dealing with you?

LOL where have I predicated my arguments on ad hominems?

That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?

Quote
You're missing the point by miles. The original ten amendments to the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- were statements of rights that everybody already understood and accepted. The Second Amendment was put in there in response to acts the British had taken to confiscate muskets and such from colonists. All ten of the first ten amendments were written in response to concerns among the independent states that a federal government might try to do just exactly what it's been trying to do for about 200 years -- seize power from the states and from the people.

The original Bill of Rights was written as an assurance to the individual states that common sense would be observed. The first ten amendments weren't included in the original Constitution because the framers never conceived that the rights described in them could ever be doubted. It was like this: "Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution that says a man has the right to own a gun? Who is stupid enough to think otherwise?" But the states insisted, and the government complied, and now we have ten REALLY good amendments to argue about.

None of this is even remotely related to my point.  The 1st amendment is regulated; the 13th amendment is regulated.  In what universe do you think gun control is unconstitutional, while libel laws are not?

Notice that I say "unconstitutional", not "unsound".  I am only concerned with the latter, because there's really no constitutional argument against gun control.  Banning guns would be another matter.

Quote
Now, getting back the the point, I'll ask you again to produce for me just one instance where a gun law saved lives. I'm asking because if you can't provide that simple thing, all 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws now on the books are by definition useless.

"by definition" - do you have any idea what's going on here?  I haven't made my mind up about gun control and did not make my thread to defend it beyond pointing out the flaw in one of many emotional knee jerk specious constitutional defenses.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:43:57 AM
You can't libel, you can't slander.  Your rights are already qualified.

Well, this is supposed to be a "fact based" discussion board; where's the scientific evidence for a deity?

LOL where have I predicated my arguments on ad hominems?

That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?

None of this is even remotely related to my point.  The 1st amendment is regulated; the 13th amendment is regulated.  In what universe do you think gun control is unconstitutional, while libel laws are not?

Notice that I say "unconstitutional", not "unsound".  I am only concerned with the latter, because there's really no constitutional argument against gun control.  Banning guns would be another matter.


"by definition" - do you have any idea what's going on here?  I haven't made my mind up about gun control and did not make my thread to defend it beyond pointing out the flaw in one of many emotional knee jerk specious constitutional defenses.

How about "Endowed by Our Creator"?

Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 11:45:57 AM
How about "Endowed by Our Creator"?

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

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:43:57 AM
That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?

Um, I think it looks just exactly like that.

See ya, loser.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Um, I think it looks just exactly like that.

That's not what an ad hominem is.  "Ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings".   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:53:07 AM
Where is the scientific evidence for a creator?  And please qualify "endowed".

The Declaration of Independence spells it out quite clearly.
Read it, it really is an interesting proclamation and law written by those you refer to as old balding white guys.

Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 12:02:19 PM
The Declaration of Independence spells it out quite clearly.

So you don't believe in jails?  After all they deprive you of liberty.  The death penalty deprives you of life.  So you're conceding that these rights are qualified, and "unalienable" was a rhetorical embellishment.

Naturally you also forget that these rights were by no means "self evident" since no society had truly implemented them until arguably a few decades ago in modern history.  It took millions of lives, hardly sounds "self evident" to me, otherwise the Romans would have been a free society.

Quote
Read it, it really is an interesting proclamation and law written by those you refer to as old balding white guys.

You forgot about the whole "slaveowning" qualification...why do you romanticize mortal men?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:12:09 PM
So you don't believe in jails?  After all they deprive you of liberty.  The death penalty deprives you of life.  So you're conceding that these rights are qualified, and "unalienable" was a rhetorical embellishment.

Naturally you also forget that these rights were by no means "self evident" since no society had truly implemented them until arguably a few decades ago in modern history.  It took millions of lives, hardly sounds "self evident" to me, otherwise the Romans would have been a free society.


You forgot about the whole "slaveowning" qualification...why do you romanticize mortal men?

Boy, you really are thick, aren't you?
You asked "Where is the scientific evidence for a creator?  And please qualify "endowed"."
And I gave you the Declaration as proof that our Founders based our inalienable Rights based upon Gods Law.

Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 12:19:51 PM
Boy, you really are thick, aren't you?
You asked "Where is the scientific evidence for a creator?  And please qualify "endowed"."
And I gave you the Declaration as proof that our Founders based our inalienable Rights based upon Gods Law.

And you think that is scientific evidence...

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
And you think that is scientific evidence...

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.