You can ban handguns without violating the 2nd Amendment

[RF667799]

Of course I am making an exception. And that exception is that she nor anyone else can create a logical reasoned argument that supports ignoring safety rules.

Whta she does is one thing that is of no interest to me. What she says when she appears on this site is open territory to anyone who disagrees.

Oh I certainly agree that you can come here and claim what she considers her necessity is illegitimate. But I would still like to see a link supporting your necessity of doing that. It's only fair since you demanded links from her supporting her own consideration of necessity.

 

[soylentgreen]

Carrying a gun is using a gun. My state of Illinois was the last state to abandon their prohibition of concealed carry. It was either that or open carry. The federal government said prohibiting both was an infringement of the constitutional right, by my understanding.

Sigh! Again you insist on ignoring the argument given to go off on some unrelated tangent. By your own admission the carrying of a gun must be a common law right as other wise it would take a constitutional amendment to create any prohibition.

 

[soylentgreen]

This: "NOTE: You may decide to make compromises for storage if your handgun is used for self-defense. This is a judgment call on your part." is part of those other safety rules in that it explains those other rules may be compromised as a judgment call. What is cherry picking is your reliance on one rule and claiming it is immutable even in light of a note that explains judgment calls apply.

Yes, a safety rule can reduce the likelihood of an accident. What it can't do is guarantee an accident won't happen. So why do you argue that it is unequivocally "Not Safe" to store a loaded gun? Because you refer to a fallacious dichotomy when you think it suits your argument. I might not know how fallacy works, but I can tell when it doesn't.

The compromise is a quick release versus a not quick release. There is no compromise on whether the gun itself can be loaded when it is stored. Not one safety manual will tell you that it is a safe thing to do.

No again you try a lie. This has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. Until you can demonstrate even one safety manual that recommends storing a loaded gun then all you have is your dishonest attempt to pretend that it is my opinion on safety.

 

[soylentgreen]

Oh I certainly agree that you can come here and claim what she considers her necessity is illegitimate. But I would still like to see a link supporting your necessity of doing that. It's only fair since you demanded links from her supporting her own consideration of necessity.

Why do I need a link. Do you not understand what is the purpose of a site such as this one?

 

[RF667799]

Sigh! Again you insist on ignoring the argument given to go off on some unrelated tangent. By your own admission the carrying of a gun must be a common law right as other wise it would take a constitutional amendment to create any prohibition.

No, that isn't how it works.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, that isn't how it works.

Of course it is how it works. Common law created a prohibition not constitutional law. You do understand that there is a difference between the two laws?

 

[RF667799]

The compromise is a quick release versus a not quick release. There is no compromise on whether the gun itself can be loaded when it is stored. Not one safety manual will tell you that it is a safe thing to do.

No again you try a lie. This has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. Until you can demonstrate even one safety manual that recommends storing a loaded gun then all you have is your dishonest attempt to pretend that it is my opinion on safety.

You have a link supporting that the compromise is a quick release vs a not quick release? Will that link explain how quick a release has to be compared to a not quick release in order to be considered as a compromise? Do you understand how incredibly stupid this part of your argument is? I can answer that last one.

Why do you argue that it is unequivocally "Not Safe" to store a loaded gun, when you admit that safety rules only decrease risk? Would you claim it is unequivocally safe to store an unloaded gun?

 

[RF667799]

Of course it is how it works. Common law created a prohibition not constitutional law. You do understand that there is a difference between the two laws?

That doesn't mean that carrying a gun is a common law right. The prohibition was judged as unconstitutional.

 

[soylentgreen]

You have a link supporting that the compromise is a quick release vs a not quick release? Will that link explain how quick a release has to be compared to a not quick release in order to be considered as a compromise? Do you understand how incredibly stupid this part of your argument is? I can answer that last one.

Why do you argue that it is unequivocally "Not Safe" to store a loaded gun, when you admit that safety rules only decrease risk? Would you claim it is unequivocally safe to store an unloaded gun?

Yes the link you gave is my support. It quite clearly is saying that you can compromise on storing a gun. it does not say that you can compromise on whether the gun is loaded. The only stupidity here is thinking that a cherry picked sentence has any value.

And again you admit that you are clueless as to what the word accident means. There is no guarantee an accident will not happen. The purpose of safety is to reduce the chance. Anyone foolish enough to think that following safety rules guarantee that an accident will not happen is nothing more than someone who does not understand the nature of what an accident is.

 

[soylentgreen]

That doesn't mean that carrying a gun is a common law right. The prohibition was judged as unconstitutional.

The prohibition would have been created under common law and found illegal because it denied constitutional law. For **** sake how embarrassing for you that a non american must have to explain how your own constitution works.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Owning a gun and using a gun is also two different things. You have a constitutional right to own a gun but you only have common law right to use a gun.

True, your point?

Are we done now with pointing out the obvious and can we now move onto the question of why should a gun be a constitutional right instead of just a common law right like a car.

Because our BOR identifies the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, "arms" is a generic term for weapons in general and that includes guns.
The right to own cars is not identified in the BOR so therefore it is just a common law right.

 

[soylentgreen]

True, your point?

Because our BOR identifies the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right, "arms" is a generic term for weapons in general and that includes guns.
The right to own cars is not identified in the BOR so therefore it is just a common law right.

No point there just stating the obvious.

There is no such thing as a natural right. You have an ability to defend yourself which is natural. But a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people. therefor it is a construct not something that occurs in nature.


A common law right tells us what a citizen can or cannot do. A constitutional right tells us what a government can or cannot do. Again not something found in nature but a construct of society.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No point there just stating the obvious.

There is no such thing as a natural right. You have an ability to defend yourself which is natural. But a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people. therefor it is a construct not something that occurs in nature.


A common law right tells us what a citizen can or cannot do. A constitutional right tells us what a government can or cannot do. Again not something found in nature but a construct of society.

And the BOR tells the government that it cannot infringe in the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2A identifies the right to keep and bear arms as a God given right, a natural right, which means that its granted by God or by whatever higher power you might believe in. The only power that can take away such a right is the same power that granted it in the first place.

 

[RF667799]

Yes the link you gave is my support. It quite clearly is saying that you can compromise on storing a gun. it does not say that you can compromise on whether the gun is loaded. The only stupidity here is thinking that a cherry picked sentence has any value.

And again you admit that you are clueless as to what the word accident means. There is no guarantee an accident will not happen. The purpose of safety is to reduce the chance. Anyone foolish enough to think that following safety rules guarantee that an accident will not happen is nothing more than someone who does not understand the nature of what an accident is.

Yet that is your position every time you revert to the Safe/Not Safe dichotomy.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So you're advocating the private ownership of howitzers?

If you want to call what I’m describing one of those, fine by me.

 

[RF667799]

The prohibition would have been created under common law and found illegal because it denied constitutional law. For **** sake how embarrassing for you that a non american must have to explain how your own constitution works.

Yeah. That shows that carrying was determined to be a constitutional right, which was the question.
How embarrassing that a despised American would display more honesty.

 

[DebateChallenge]

If you want to call what I’m describing one of those, fine by me.

So you're alright with people privately owning howitzers?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So you're alright with people privately owning howitzers?

Sure, if you want to call a giant unmovable gun that only fires one tiny bullet one of those, I don’t care.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Sure, if you want to call a giant unmovable gun that only fires one tiny bullet one of those, I don’t care.

Howitzers aren't unmovable, you can hitch them to a car and truck and move them just fine.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Howitzers aren't unmovable, you can hitch them to a car and truck and move them just fine.

That’s nice.

 

[Rich2018]

The issue of rape here seems to be simply that it is good enough for a woman to defend herself and a gun is the best way to do that.

I dispute that

Moreover I think the availability of guns increases the chances of a woman being raped - by strangers that is

But in reality that is nothing more than ambulance at the bottom of a cliff thinking. Which seems also to americans way of dealing with many problems.

Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted
They stress the need for mental health care, then say that it would be voluntary. Perish the thought that it is compulsory in a country where people won't even wear a damn fgace mask

Unfortunately lursa appears to be a victim of that thinking. She appears to think it safe to do practice something that is clearly by any standard unsafe. And not one mention of how to deal with rape in a way that will help prevent the incident in the first place. Which would be for men to actually get their shit together and do something about the toxic male attitude that makes them think no means yes.

That too.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

It only took the second post to blow the OP's argument out of the water. Supreme court decision D.C. vs Heller, you don't need to be part of a militia to privately own a firearm.

 

[Rich2018]

It only took the second post to blow the OP's argument out of the water. Supreme court decision D.C. vs Heller, you don't need to be part of a militia to privately own a firearm.

Because they got round the wording of the 2nd Amendment by deeming that everyone was part of the militia (well less felons, mentally unfit etc).

 

[DebateChallenge]

That’s nice.

And they don't fire "tiny" bullets, if you saw the video you would've seen that the bullets it fires are huge.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Moreover I think the availability of guns increases the chances of a woman being raped - by strangers that is

How so?