Let's consolidate invaild pro-gun arguments

[ttwtt78640]

Not a big deal is not the standard you created. It turns the right into a privilege by your standard

BGCs do not turn a right into a state issued privilege if they are used only to deny those who have lost their 2A rights via due process of law the ability to obtain guns from FFL dealers.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Another 2nd Amendment debate that misses the point, all these "invalid pro-gun arguments" are overmatched when it comes to pie in the sky thinking from our anti-gun crowds.

 

[Noodlegawd]

An invalid pro-gun argument might be that the civilian right to own a firearm is "necessary."

Has anyone of consequence actually made this argument?

 

[lwf]

Has anyone of consequence actually made this argument?

Depends on who is "of consequence." I hear it often argued that civilian owned firearms are necessary to protect life and liberty. I would argue that this is an opinion easily challenged by all the civilians who enjoy life and liberty without one. Moreover, it is a moot point: We should have the freedom to enjoy things that are unnecessary if we so choose, even if they can be dangerous when misused.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Depends on who is "of consequence."

Someone, or a group of someones, who have influence significant enough to affect prevailing thought, legislation, or judicial determinations.

I hear it often argued that civilian owned firearms are necessary to protect life and liberty.

I guess I haven't heard that argument phrased in quite that way by anyone credible. I've certainly seen arguments to the effect that you are better able to protect yourself if you have a firearm, and that it might be necessary in some situations (albeit those that are rare for most people), but not that it is a necessity generally.

Moreover, it is a moot point: We should have the freedom to enjoy things that are unnecessary if we so choose, even if they can be dangerous when misused.

On this I agree. I frequently respond to questions about why we "need" this or that kind of gun by pointing out that "need" is irrelevant. And then I sometimes give examples of several things we definitely don't need, that are a lot more dangerous than the kinds of firearms under discussion, and that those people undoubtedly would defend their right to own just as strongly as I would defend our right to own AR15s and similar firearms.

 

[apdst]

Let's start with the ultimate invalid argument, the 2A. Many pro-gun people reflexively default to "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2A is infringed upon, and rightly so. If you disagree, then you are for an absolutely unrestricted right to any and all guns for any and all Americans. Therefore, you should also take on absurd positions such as: death row prisoners should have unrestricted rights.

Death row inmates are in prison, so you're argument is absolutely stupid. No one has suggested that prison inmate have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[apdst]

Yes. All rights come with responsibilities. The more potential danger the right has, the more responsibility there is. The more deadly the gun, the more restrictions on that gun. If the 2A only applied to muskets, we probably wouldn't need many gun control measures.

A musket is just as deadly as a .50 caliber machine gun. If you're shot with either and the projectile does enough damage, you will be just as dead, either way.

 

[apdst]

"Deadly" is not an objective measurement. All firearms are "deadly," but only when used to kill a human being, as are most other tools. 99.9% of firearms in the U.S. regardless of type are owned by law-abiding citizens and will never be used to harm human beings. So these are no more "deadly" than your car, which, while capable of taking out large numbers of people at once, will almost certainly never be used to do so.

Never say never...

Vehicle-ramming attack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[apdst]

I remember hearing on the radio that only 1% of people (in my county, I believe) catch Covid-19, and only 1% of those people pass away.

So, the supposed "99% of guns ..." argument doesn't fly because the small percentage does a lot of damage.

Do you own a gun?

 

[apdst]

It is off topic and I was just trying bv to make a point. But to bring it back directly to guns I could say then all background checks should be unconstitutional as it treats guns as a privilege. In fact guns should be allowed in all court rooms and on planes as well. But you see my point

No one is required to, or has no other choice but to fly on an airplane. Every part of The United States is accessable by automobile. Therefore, if I want to carry a gun while driving, that's my right.

 

[vegas giants]

No one is required to, or has no other choice but to fly on an airplane. Every part of The United States is accessable by automobile. Therefore, if I want to carry a gun while driving, that's my right.

I love these splitting hairs. If a law came out that said you cant have your gun in a car I guess you could always walk. LOL

 

[apdst]

I love these splitting hairs. If a law came out that said you cant have your gun in a car I guess you could always walk. LOL

In some states I can't carry a gun while I'm walking. Now, post more stupidity, as you usually do.

 

[vegas giants]

In some states I can't carry a gun while I'm walking. Now, post more stupidity, as you usually do.

Sure you can. Just become a cop. Problem solved. LOL

 

[apdst]

Sure you can. Just become a cop. Problem solved. LOL

And there you are. Right on time...lol

 

[vegas giants]

And there you are. Right on time...lol

I love you buddy. LOL

 

[Bullseye]

Aintiwar, I think it kind of falls into that same "fire in a crowded theater" exception thing. Almost every right has some obvious restrictions. Almost all gun advocates understand and accept that some people--e.g., the criminally insane--should not have guns. And yes, I know that seems to go against that "should not be infringed" thing, but it might come down to how you define "infringed." It can get very complicated, but that's actually a good thing because it means that everybody needs to put some thought into it to figure out what's best for the country.

I think you nailed it. I think antiwar is grasping at the fact that there are myriad laws and regulations the modify our right to keep and bear arms. There is an overarching condition that our right to exercise a particular right is modulated by the prohibition of not infringing on others rights nor hurting others or doing damage. Your “crowded theater” example illustrates as do laws againg slander, incitement to violence, libel, etc.

 

[apdst]

Another 2nd Amendment debate that misses the point, all these "invalid pro-gun arguments" are overmatched when it comes to pie in the sky thinking from our anti-gun crowds.

Any pro-gun control argument is pie in the sky thinking.

 

[apdst]

I love you buddy. LOL

Everybody does...lol

 

[zsu2357]

I remember hearing on the radio that only 1% of people (in my county, I believe) catch Covid-19, and only 1% of those people pass away.

So, the supposed "99% of guns ..." argument doesn't fly because the small percentage does a lot of damage.

In my country? Not judging. But I read sometime back in the TECH SUPPORT forum xF BUGS, xF HELP threads(don't recall which) a problem with flags showing up representing wrong countries. The underlined made me think of it.

 

[zsu2357]

Very poor analogy; prisoners forfeit their rights by violating existing laws....comparing them to law abiding firearms owners is a non starter.

As far as death row if a person can be found 100% innocent then yeah. Here's an analogy. A very good friend of mine spent 7 years on death row and was later found to be 100% innocent. I met him shortly after he was released around 73 or 74 No such things as DNA test.
The Guyette Story: In Defense of Innocence: No I'm not pushing a book.

 

[rickc]

I love these splitting hairs. If a law came out that said you cant have your gun in a car I guess you could always walk. LOL

The fallacy of gun laws

Who follows them? Why only the law abiding citizens

Who does more restrictive gun laws impact? Why the law abiding citizens.

Why don't we just enforce the laws we have.

Virtually everyone who deals in drugs or drug money has at least a handgun. Stash houses and laboratories are arsenals.”

One out of every four individuals arrested on illegal drug charges reports having carried a firearm all or most of the time during the course of his or her drug involvement.

7 Similarly, nearly one-quarter of those individuals arrested on weapons charges report having been under the influence of illicit drugs at the time of their arrest.

8 Approximately onehalf of state inmates incarcerated on firearms charges indicated they carried a firearm to scare others, while two-fifths indicated they used a firearm to defend themselves and approximately one-fifth used a firearm to “get away.”

9 Drugs and firearms are linked in many identifiable ways:
• The illegal drug trade is traditionally regulated by firearms violence;
• Firearms are used to protect shipments, intimidate competitors, collect or enforce debts, maintain turf, resolve disputes, silence informants and to reward subordinates;
• Illegal drug purchasers use firearms as protection during drug transactions;
• Illegal drug users commit crimes, often facilitated by firearms, to obtain funds to buy drugs;
• Illegal drug users commit crimes facilitated by firearms while under the influence of drugs;
• Illegal drugs and firearms are often exchanged as currency— firearms for drugs and drugs for firearms; and
• Illegal drugs and firearms are frequently trafficked along the same routes and by the same individuals.

 

[zsu2357]

Is entering this country as a citizen a right or a privilege?

If you're a citizen of course it's your right to enter your country. If you're not a citizen then it's a privilege. And if you want too be be a citizen you get in line and fill out forms (I know you are partial to forms)and wait.

 

[Antiwar]

Do you own a gun?

No.

 

[Antiwar]

I think you nailed it. I think antiwar is grasping at the fact that there are myriad laws and regulations the modify our right to keep and bear arms. There is an overarching condition that our right to exercise a particular right is modulated by the prohibition of not infringing on others rights nor hurting others or doing damage. Your “crowded theater” example illustrates as do laws againg slander, incitement to violence, libel, etc.

How am I supposedly "grasping ..."?

 

[Casper]

No.

Why not?