The Burden of Proof in Gun Control Issues

[haymarket]

given that the definition you choose to use to the exclusion of all others is clearly contradictory to the well stated intent of the founders and completely flies in the face of the presumptions the founders accepted when they adopted the constitution, we can only conclude that your definition is adopted by you for the purpose of evasion and denigration of the right rather than any honest basis in fact

You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.

 

[TurtleDude]

You confuse me with somebody who cares about that sort of macho measurement game.

You are not a professional police officer Turtle. You are just a civilian.

I actually was the boss of cops, I was a DA. and I was a civilian just like the cops

so don't start playing the idiotic game that cops are not civilians or that weapons even poorly trained cops get whether they actually are street cops or not are proper when cops have them but are so dangerous that no civilian, even a former world class professional shooter like me who has far more legal training in self defense than any cop, should be able to even possess (let alone carry on the street)

AND I train cops in lethal force encounters

why

1) because I have a law degree

2) because I have defended cops and federal agents in shootings

3) because I can draw and shoot a target 6 times at 15 yards before most cops can get their pistol out of a holster

4) because I qualified distinguished expert on the US Marshall service's pistol qualification course and cleaned the Cincinnati POlice Department and Hamilton County Sheriff's Office qualifying course with

EIGHT different handguns

that's why

so I am far far more qualified than the cops you worship and cops are NOT PROFESSIONAL firearms experts

(I am)

 

[TurtleDude]

You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.

Posting this lie filled crap over and over doesn't make your stupid lies any less stupid

you cannot prove any of that nonsense

even your exalted idols-biden and Obama-admit that stuff way short of a complete ban on all guns would violate their far left misinterpretations of the second amendment

 

[TurtleDude]

Well if that is the first thing you found it must be the last word on the subject. :doh:roll:

And these are the same people you made fun of in other posts but now you hold up as some sort of authority. What a sad joke. Make up your mind already for heavens sake. :roll:

You pretend that cops want registration (has anyone seen any proof from the guy who demands others prove their common sense claims) and yet you cannot even advance an argument as to why they do and why registration actually helps with crime control

I call BS yet again on your copious anti gun-anti right BS

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I never stated that registration of your weapons would reduce suicides nor murders.

Then you're admitting that registration serves no legitimate purpose, then? Reducing the incidence of suicides or murders would surely be the only legitimate purpose that could be claimed for registration of firearms, or for any other gun control laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…why don't you set for the rational reasons for registration

Because there aren't any, and he knows it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then you're admitting that registration serves no legitimate purpose, then? Reducing the incidence of suicides or murders would surely be the only legitimate purpose that could be claimed for registration of firearms, or for any other gun control laws.

harassing republicans and members of the "gun culture" is the main legitimate purpose it seems though those who have such beliefs are loathe to publicly admit them

 

[haymarket]

I actually was the boss of cops, I was a DA. and I was a civilian just like the cops)

Cops are not civilians.

And you were not one of them.

Your own ability with firearms means nothing and is irrelevant to this entire issue of registration.

 

[haymarket]

Posting this lie filled crap over and over doesn't make your stupid lies any less stupid

you cannot prove any of that nonsense

even your exalted idols-biden and Obama-admit that stuff way short of a complete ban on all guns would violate their far left misinterpretations of the second amendment

Then why are you impotent to point out one falsehood in any of that post you are so critical of?
Tell us what is factually wrong and provide the evidence to support your claim. Here is the post you claim is filled with lies:

You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.

So tell us where the LIES are and show us with authoritative verifiable evidence why they are lies.

 

[haymarket]

Then you're admitting that registration serves no legitimate purpose, then? Reducing the incidence of suicides or murders would surely be the only legitimate purpose that could be claimed for registration of firearms, or for any other gun control laws.

I have stated here several times already that registration is a law enforcement tool to fight crime.

 

[molten_dragon]

In a free society, the burden should always be on those who wish to limit freedom. Thus when some control freak starts arguing for "registration" or "Magazine Capacity limits" and then claims we don't meet our burden when we cannot demonstrate (to their satisfaction which of course is an unreachable goal) that

1) every case of registration has led to confiscation

2) or that magazine limits will always lead to further limits

I don't agree with this at all. The burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. If you're claiming that every case of registration has led to confiscation and that magazine limits will always lead to more limits, it's up to you to prove that's true.

That doesn't mean I agree with registration or magazine limits of course.

 

[haymarket]

I don't agree with this at all. The burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. If you're claiming that every case of registration has led to confiscation and that magazine limits will always lead to more limits, it's up to you to prove that's true.

That doesn't mean I agree with registration or magazine limits of course.

The poster who started this thread resents the challenge that his side present complete data about the allegation that gun registrations leads to confiscation. Instead they have a belief and they support that belief with cherry picked anecdotal incidents where they believe this has happened. For those few examples, we are then suppose to accept their belief that if we have registration in the USA the eventual nextstep will be a confiscation of guns and a destruction of the right to bear arms.

Nobody has said that they want proof that registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

All that has been requested is the following:
a - a complete list of all the states, territories and nations which have now or have ever had firearms registration
b - a complete list of the same where it led to confiscation

With these two necessary pieces of data, we can then have a real discussion about if the possibility is merely one that exists, one that could occur but usually does not occur, or is a likely step. In other words, we need to have this data so this claim can be truly studied with facts and not just cherry picked anecdotes.

Look, every building which burns down to the ground starts with a fire. But every building which catches fire does not burn to the ground.

We know that copping a feel can sometimes lead to pregnancy and a destroyed life with unwanted kids.
We know that smoking a joint can sometimes put a kid on a path to harder addiction and a destroyed life.
We know that a beer can sometimes put a person on a path to alcoholism and sleeping on a urine stained discarded mattress in an seedy alley.

So do we then take our ten year olds and lock them in the house for the next decade as a logical response?

That would be stupid and way way way over the top.

So lets find out if those who claim that registration is just step to confiscation are right or not. And if they want to go down that path, it is incumbent upon them to present the complete data so that the rest of us not asserting that claim of fact can explore it.

The burden of proof on gun issues is no different than on any other issue. The rules are not special because it involves guns or rights.

http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Burden_of_proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

So lets see the complete data to support the claim that registration is just a step to eventual confiscation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The poster who started this thread resents the challenge that his side present complete data about the allegation that gun registrations leads to confiscation. Instead they have a belief and they support that belief with cherry picked anecdotal incidents where they believe this has happened. For those few examples, we are then suppose to accept their belief that if we have registration in the USA the eventual nextstep will be a confiscation of guns and a destruction of the right to bear arms.

Nobody has said that they want proof that registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

All that has been requested is the following:
a - a complete list of all the states, territories and nations which have now or have ever had firearms registration
b - a complete list of the same where it led to confiscation

With these two necessary pieces of data, we can then have a real discussion about if the possibility is merely one that exists, one that could occur but usually does not occur, or is a likely step. In other words, we need to have this data so this claim can be truly studied with facts and not just cherry picked anecdotes.

Look, every building which burns down to the ground starts with a fire. But every building which catches fire does not burn to the ground.

We know that copping a feel can sometimes lead to pregnancy and a destroyed life with unwanted kids.
We know that smoking a joint can sometimes put a kid on a path to harder addiction and a destroyed life.
We know that a beer can sometimes put a person on a path to alcoholism and sleeping on a urine stained discarded mattress in an seedy alley.

So do we then take our ten year olds and lock them in the house for the next decade as a logical response?

That would be stupid and way way way over the top.

So lets find out if those who claim that registration is just step to confiscation are right or not. And if they want to go down that path, it is incumbent upon them to present the complete data so that the rest of us not asserting that claim of fact can explore it.

The burden of proof on gun issues is no different than on any other issue. The rules are not special because it involves guns or rights.

Burden of proof - Debatepedia



and this

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holder of the burden[edit]



So lets see the complete data to support the claim that registration is just a step to eventual confiscation.

You dont need complete data. Enough examples usually satisfy those looking for satisfy the possibility. Because that is what we are talking about, the possibility that registration can be used for confiscation.

Red China, Soviet Union, all of the Eastern Bloc, England, Canada, Nazi Germany and Kosovo

Its been done piecemeal all over the globe. South Africa, Australia, New York and California. Where they dont make all guns illegal, they just make certain ones illegal and confiscate or order those weapons destroyed upon discovery and of course make it a crime to possess them without ever undergoing public notification.

 

[haymarket]

You dont need complete data.

All me to finish it for you...... you don't need complete data if the goal is to cherry pick a few examples from history which fit your ideological agenda and you are afraid of seeing what the complete picture is because it might shatter the illusion you have tried to present.

In all my years I never thought I would live long enough to see anybody with any sense of honesty state that incomplete anecdotal data is preferable over complete and thorough data from which to draw serious conclusions about serious matters of public policy.

Of course, I also never wanted to live long enough to see Belief supplant Evidence as the mainstay of debate.

I also thought I would never live to see sloth and laziness become the rule among many in presenting their case and outright refusal to do the necessary work and research to prove a point is mocked and shunned in favor of simple personal pompous pontifications which merely bolster already held beliefs.

 

[humbolt]

You will have to give the professors phone number also as I have little idea what he is talking about.

Here's a link. The Commonplace Second Amendment

 

[TurtleDude]

Cops are not civilians.

And you were not one of them.

Your own ability with firearms means nothing and is irrelevant to this entire issue of registration.

yeah and shall not be infringed does not prevent infringement

sorry Haymarket, your silly definitions are rejected by all of those who actually come at this issue honestly

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't agree with this at all. The burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. If you're claiming that every case of registration has led to confiscation and that magazine limits will always lead to more limits, it's up to you to prove that's true.

That doesn't mean I agree with registration or magazine limits of course.

I didn't

try again

I said that registration is advocated by those who want confiscation

I said that registration facilitates and eases the obstacles to confiscation

I said that registration has been used to facilitate confiscation

and I noted that registration has never been shown in this country to facilitate public safety

Haymarket's game is to try to enforce his definitions on others

he claimed unless we could prove that registration leads to confiscation we have no argument against it

that's silly

 

[haymarket]

yeah and shall not be infringed does not prevent infringement

sorry Haymarket, your silly definitions are rejected by all of those who actually come at this issue honestly

My "silly definitions"!?!?!?!?

Tell you what Turtle I will bet you my continued existence here against yours if I cannot find five authoritative dictionaries that clearly state that police ARE NOT CIVILIANS.

I will not rephrase it for you in my own words.

I will not explain it for you in my own words.

I will not twist it for you in my own words.

I will not pervert it for you in my own words.

I will not mention some law or administrative rule that I am impotent to actually cite and quote from and reproduce right here.

I will give you no less than five dictionary definitions which state that cops are NOT CIVILIANS.

Ready to put up your existence here against mine regarding my "silly definitions"?

 

[TurtleDude]

My "silly definitions"!?!?!?!?

Tell you what Turtle I will bet you my continued existence here against yours if I cannot find five authoritative dictionaries that clearly state that police ARE NOT CIVILIANS.

I will not rephrase it for you in my own words.

I will not explain it for you in my own words.

I will not twist it for you in my own words.

I will not pervert it for you in my own words.

I will not mention some law or administrative rule that I am impotent to actually cite and quote from and reproduce right here.

I will give you no less than five dictionary definitions which state that cops are NOT CIVILIANS.

Ready to put up your existence here against mine regarding my "silly definitions"?

you can rant all you want. You don't know what you are talking about when you blather on about civilians

civilian law enforcement officers are civilians. They are under civilian law, they answer to civilian authorities and they are not member of the military. You try to pretend otherwise to justify your anti gun nonsense. You are wrong just as you are about "infringed"

you try to force your stupid definitions on the rest of us because your definitions preserve your illogical arguments

I am not going to accept that crap. Police officers are civilians unless they are in the military. Their right to deploy deadly force against criminals is the same as mine.

 

[prometeus]

My support for registration is given as it would be a tool to help law enforcement fight crime.

Except you can not provide ANYTHING to support that pipe dream.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except you can not provide ANYTHING to support that pipe dream.

and he ignores the fact that a strong majority of police officers do not support that liberal scheme against gun ownership

note he cannot actually proffer a logical argument as to why registration does anything positive

why-because the real motivations of those who seek registration is not to stop crime but to incrementally destroy our gun rights

 

[TurtleDude]

All me to finish it for you...... you don't need complete data if the goal is to cherry pick a few examples from history which fit your ideological agenda and you are afraid of seeing what the complete picture is because it might shatter the illusion you have tried to present.

In all my years I never thought I would live long enough to see anybody with any sense of honesty state that incomplete anecdotal data is preferable over complete and thorough data from which to draw serious conclusions about serious matters of public policy.

Of course, I also never wanted to live long enough to see Belief supplant Evidence as the mainstay of debate.

I also thought I would never live to see sloth and laziness become the rule among many in presenting their case and outright refusal to do the necessary work and research to prove a point is mocked and shunned in favor of simple personal pompous pontifications which merely bolster already held beliefs.

this is coming from a guy whose support for registration is based on a claim that some cops somewhere wanted registration. Interesting double standards as to what is convincing proof

 

[Federalist]

registration in itself is evil and has no usefulness

Of course it's evil.

Attacking innocent people is always evil. When the government initiates force against people who have done nothing that results in a victim, the government is doing nothing more than initiating force against innocent people.

No victim; no crime. Punishing victimless crimes should itself be a crime.

But, the sycophants and toadies for the police state know that disarming the public is essential for establishing their rule over their fellow man.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course it's evil.

Attacking innocent people is always evil. When the government initiates force against people who have done nothing that results in a victim, the government is doing nothing more than initiating force against innocent people.

No victim; no crime. Punishing victimless crimes should itself be a crime.

But, the sycophants and toadies for the police state know that disarming the public is essential for establishing their rule over their fellow man.

the real goal of the scumbag politicians is to eliminate pro gun organizations. they know they will never disarm the population. But if its too expensive or illegal to publicly use guns for sport or target shooting etc the reason for people joining groups like the NRA, the ATA or the USPSA will disappear. And those groups either directly (like the NRA's lobbying wing) or indirectly (every shooting sport organization i belong to will urge people to VOTE FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS) support pro gun candidates who generally oppose the socialist agenda of assholes like Biden.

its those groups that Biden and Feintard, and SChummer want to get rid of

and its why those who work for the Leftwing politicians attack "gun culture" etc

 

[Federalist]

the real goal of the scumbag politicians is to eliminate pro gun organizations. they know they will never disarm the population. But if its too expensive or illegal to publicly use guns for sport or target shooting etc the reason for people joining groups like the NRA, the ATA or the USPSA will disappear. And those groups either directly (like the NRA's lobbying wing) or indirectly (every shooting sport organization i belong to will urge people to VOTE FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS) support pro gun candidates who generally oppose the socialist agenda of assholes like Biden.

its those groups that Biden and Feintard, and SChummer want to get rid of

and its why those who work for the Leftwing politicians attack "gun culture" etc

I'm sure the control-freak assholes like Biden, Feinstein, and Schumer would agree with this sentiment:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Those who wish to subjugate their fellow man ALWAYS seek to disarm their fellow man.