Gun Control Discussion 2

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

They're referred to as "amendments" because they're changes to the Constitution, not changes unto themselves. The first 10 amendments, you should know, are referred to as The Bill of Rights.  As interesting as this semantic inquiry is, none of the amendments particularly 1-10 have ever been changed. The 21st Amendment revoked (not amended) the Eighteen Amendment, which are outside of the Bill of Rights. What you're suggesting is a type of prohibition so I don't know how that helps your case.

So the Bill of Rights is immutable? Even for an amendment that has been so broadly interpreted (and frankly mutated by Special Interest) as the 2nd has been? That none of the amendments has ever been changed is technically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect). See again the 18th amendment. 

[TerraPrime]

15 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Haha, I'm not sure if that's how the right is listed. But two points:

• Are you the one initiating the danger? I don't see how a person pulling out his weapon in a time of danger would result in your shooting if you're not the initiator.
• If you're an innocent bystander and I harm you, can you not hold me responsible? Is that not how your right is protected and expressed? You could die, but then your family could hold me responsible. Is that not sufficient?

This is a disingenuous line of argument. 

 

There is a non-zero number of people who _are_ irresponsible gun owners and gun users. We know this because we have cases of it. We had a guy last year who pulled a gun out over road rage, fired it into a spot he thought was "blank" and killed a child in the backseat of the van. The idea that gun owners are responsible do-gooders who only want to defend themselves is true only up to the point when it is not true. The idea that there's a separation between "good, responsible" gun owners and "bad, irresponsible" gun owners is fictitious - most of these mass shooters were responsible gun owners up until they started firing into a crowd.

 

The framing of the discussion where we are asked to focus on the fact that most gun owners are not mass shooters, as it relates to assessing public safety, is so far removed from how humans work in assessing risks. There are bombs that are duds and won't explode, so are we being overly cautious to treat all bombs as potentially devastating? There are foodborne pathogens that can kill, but most do not. Do we treat every case of infection as if it's nothing, until the patient dies? We evaluate risks based not only on propensity of occurrence but also on severity of impact. 

 

Also, what, pray tell, will holding the shooter accountable for death or permanent handicap do? Fuck all, is what it will do. Being held accountable by laws governing homicide and murder is the least useful form of redress we can get, but it's the only form available after-the-fact. For most people, we'd rather not have to be at that stage. I mean, what good did it do to the U.S. to hold UAE and Iraq accountable for 9/11? Fuck all, is what good it's done. 

 

I support people's right to own firearms. I support further deregulation on what firearms can be owned. I want felons to be able to own firearms.  That is the logically consistent position for as long as the 2A is in effect. 

 

But let's have some decency in intellectual honesty and stop peddling ammosexual masturbatory softcore porn of good gun owners only aiming perfectly to disarm only the assailants without harming anyone else around. 

[kairparavel]

Guys, it's right not there in the Constitution. No one has the right to not get shot. It's right below No one has the right to health care and above Women don't have the right to agency over their bodies. But we can get a free gun with our new roof!

This discussion will never ever go anywhere because of a fragile piece of paper locked up in an environmentally controlled room lest it disintegrate, written by men who had real issues about a few things at that point in time, based on what they knew right then and before then, and didn't know about the coming technological improvements in firearms. Or bullets. Or transportation that could get you around quicker than a horse and get you to your targets faster. Or population changes and growth. Or disgruntied employees and estranged spouses/boyfriends who lack the mental capacity to not take down people with guns in moments of crisis. Or road rage. Or malls. 

If the Bill of Rights was written today could it capture everything required for society 100, 200, 500 years from now? But this document from the late 1700s does?

[TerraPrime]

39 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

If the Bill of Rights was written today could it capture everything required for society 100, 200, 500 years from now? But this document from the late 1700s does?

The stronger argument is that the Constitution (and the Amendments) do not capture what life is like in the future, but that it sets the boundaries of what is permissible and allowed. The rejection of re-interpreting the Constitution is not entirely baseless, and there is a certain level of rationality to it. While life and technology do change, the boundaries of freedom do not necessarily have to. It is an assumption that needs to be agreed upon, first, and it's that part that is tripping up the two sides. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

2 hours ago, Seli said:

Second law of thermodynamics.

Please expand.

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So the Bill of Rights is immutable?

The rights described in the Bill of Rights are immutable, yes.

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That none of the amendments has ever been changed is technically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect). See again the 18th amendment. 

The 21st amendment repealed the eighteenth amendment. The 18th amendment now states only that the importation and transportation of liquor is under the jurisdiction of the government. This would be true with or without the amendment.

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

This is a disingenuous line of argument.

There is a non-zero number of people who _are_ irresponsible gun owners and gun users. We know this because we have cases of it.

Where does my line of argument dispute this?

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

The idea that gun owners are responsible do-gooders who only want to defend themselves is true only up to the point when it is not true.

Who made this argument?

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

The idea that there's a separation between "good, responsible" gun owners and "bad, irresponsible" gun owners is fictitious - most of these mass shooters were responsible gun owners up until they started firing into a crowd.

By that line of reasoning, you can't separate good people from bad people because everyone's a good person up until they murder. Where in my citing statistics did I assume what a person will do?

 

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

The framing of the discussion where we are asked to focus on the fact that most gun owners are not mass shooters, as it relates to assessing public safety, is so far removed from how humans work in assessing risks. There are bombs that are duds and won't explode, so are we being overly cautious to treat all bombs as potentially devastating? There are foodborne pathogens that can kill, but most do not. Do we treat every case of infection as if it's nothing, until the patient dies? We evaluate risks based not only on propensity of occurrence but also on severity of impact.

This makes absolutely no sense. The fact that most gun owners are not mass shooters speaks to incidence, a key factor in assessing risks. We determine the "propensity of occurrence" based on that incidence. Your argument only works if every gun owner is a likely threat. No one disputes that any gun owner "can" kill. Only that most haven't or don't. And since assessing risks cannot be based on future information, I bet it's safe to presume that the risk is informed by present and past data.

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

Also, what, pray tell, will holding the shooter accountable for death or permanent handicap do? Fuck all, is what it will do. Being held accountable by laws governing homicide and murder is the least useful form of redress we can get, but it's the only form available after-the-fact.

What will it do? It's as it states: it will hold them responsible. Crime prevention is already difficult to begin with, which is why we can at times only impose liability and set a deterrent. Laws against murder don't stop murder; laws against theft don't stop theft. Hence restitution is sought after-the-fact. And that's because we do not condemn people before the fact. It's as you suggested above: you're a do-gooder until you do something wrong.

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

I support people's right to own firearms. I support further deregulation on what firearms can be owned. I want felons to be able to own firearms.  That is the logically consistent position for as long as the 2A is in effect. 

 

But let's have some decency in intellectual honesty and stop peddling ammosexual masturbatory softcore porn of good gun owners only aiming perfectly to disarm only the assailants without harming anyone else around. 

I'm not sure that you've shown that I'm the one being "intellectually dishonest." You have not framed my argument accurately. The part that's in bold is a strawman.

[DMC]

No matter your normative arguments on whether they should be or not, it is decidedly false to claim the Bill of Rights are immutable.  Other than the 3rd (due to irrelevance) and the 9th (because it's open-ended), each amendment therein has inarguably been changed in interpretation and implication over the past two centuries.

[Mother Cocanuts]

49 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No matter your normative arguments on whether they should be or not, it is decidedly false to claim the Bill of Rights are immutable.  Other than the 3rd (due to irrelevance) and the 9th (because it's open-ended), each amendment therein has inarguably been changed in interpretation and implication over the past two centuries.

Do you have a reference?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Do you have a reference?

How about how the NRA changed the courts view on the 2nd? Surely you're aware of that? I guess it only counts as a change if you don't approve of it?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I support the idea of a constitution, I really do. I like the bill of rights. But when a country has one specific right that no other country on Earth recognises, isn’t that a clue that it might be, you know, controversial? Worth reconsidering?

Especially when it’s bloody stupid and causes nothing good.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I support the idea of a constitution, I really do. I like the bill of rights. But when a country has one specific right that no other country on Earth recognises, isn’t that a clue that it might be, you know, controversial? Worth reconsidering?

Especially when it’s bloody stupid and causes nothing good.

At this point the US view of gun ownership and rights is much more akin to some bizarre religious or weird cultural fetish that the rest of the world tacitly disapproves of. It's out version of Saudi Arabia not allowing women to drive.

[Darth Richard II]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At this point the US view of gun ownership and rights is much more akin to some bizarre religious or weird cultural fetish that the rest of the world tacitly disapproves of. It's out version of Saudi Arabia not allowing women to drive.

Damn. I want that on a tshirt.

[Rippounet]

It's not just guns though. On some level the current dominant interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a reflection of the dominant political philosophy in the US. And ironically it was, imho, best expressed by Thatcher:

Quote

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

I think the quote says it all. If there is no society, there can't be a notion of collective security or collective responsibility. If there is no society, there is no point in compromising to solve problems. If there is no society, then individual rights are the only thing that matters. And if people must look after themselves and their families, then it's only natural that they have a right to a fething gun.

I'm afraid the reason why the US is so unique as regards its bizarre gun laws is quite simply because it's one of the most individualistic societies on earth.

[The guy from the Vale]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At this point the US view of gun ownership and rights is much more akin to some bizarre religious or weird cultural fetish that the rest of the world tacitly disapproves of. It's out version of Saudi Arabia not allowing women to drive.

Well...

Should we take that as a good sign, that even such ingrained stupidities can eventually change? Or rather as a sign that the US is even less able to rectify wrongs than Saudi Arabia, of all places?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

No matter your normative arguments on whether they should be or not, it is decidedly false to claim the Bill of Rights are immutable.  Other than the 3rd (due to irrelevance) and the 9th (because it's open-ended), each amendment therein has inarguably been changed in interpretation and implication over the past two centuries.

Don't you dare think about making me have to quarter a British solider!

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't you dare think about making me have to quarter a British solider!

They'll have my quarters when they pry them from my cold, dead, fingers.

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How about how the NRA changed the courts view on the 2nd? Surely you're aware of that? I guess it only counts as a change if you don't approve of it?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra

NRA didn't change how it's seen. There's a legitimate linguistic dispute over the meaning of 2nd Amendment. NRA has correctly argued that the statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is an ablative absolute construction. Those who have opposed the private use of firearms argued that the first two clauses set a condition for the third clause. This is, at least grammatically, incorrect. "A well regulated Militia" sets a condition for nothing. "Being necessary to the security of a free State" either modifies the previous clause, or the successive clause. Here I can give you an example:

Having eaten, being that supper was prepared at 6, Jon Smith went partying. Jon Smith went partying can stand on its own as a sentence. The two previous sentences give information, but they do not set conditions--meaning, he needs neither to eat or wait until after 6, to go out. It can also be read as John Smith ate the supper that was prepared at 6, and he went partying. Now if we take the statement in the 2nd amendment and apply that logic, it would read as this,  "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (The purpose of an absolute construction is to put two clauses together without a conjunction.) The only subordinate clause in that statement is "being necessary to the security of a free State"; therefore, "well regulated militia" modifies nothing.

The grammar is important because the meaning is important for interpretation. And the NRA got it right.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Whether they got it right or not is secondary to my point. The definition changed. You know, on that immutable 2nd Amendment. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Do you have a reference?

1st:  Lee v. Weisman (1992); Schenk v. US (1919); Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969); NYT v. Sullivan (1964); NYT v. US (1971)

4th:  Weeks v. US (1915); Mapp v. Ohio (1961); Safford v. Redding (2009)

5th:  Chambers v. Florida (1940); Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944); Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

6th:  Powell v. Alabama (1932); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Maryland v. Craig (1990)

7th:  Galloway v. US (1943); Chauffeaurs et al. v. Terry (1990)

8th:  Furman v. Georgia (1972); Gregg v. Georgia (1976); Helling v. McKinney (1993)

The above is in no way comprehensive, and intentionally omits the 2nd amendment.

[Mother Cocanuts]

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Whether they got it right or not is secondary to my point. The definition changed. You know, on that immutable 2nd Amendment. 

The government fucked up.

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

1st:  Lee v. Weisman (1992); Schenk v. US (1919); Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969); NYT v. Sullivan (1964); NYT v. US (1971)

4th:  Weeks v. US (1915); Mapp v. Ohio (1961); Safford v. Redding (2009)

5th:  Chambers v. Florida (1940); Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944); Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

6th:  Powell v. Alabama (1932); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Maryland v. Craig (1990)

7th:  Galloway v. US (1943); Chauffeaurs et al. v. Terry (1990)

8th:  Furman v. Georgia (1972); Gregg v. Georgia (1976); Helling v. McKinney (1993)

The above is in no way comprehensive, and intentionally omits the 2nd amendment.

Thus far, I've read the cases on the 4th and 5th amendment, but have not seen how any of these cases have demonstrated a "change in interpretation and implication." Please explain.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The government fucked up.

Lulz. Okay. The point stands.