Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[iceaura]

Anything else is an interpretive error.

You are not making sense.

As I said earlier if the 2nd read with the word "and" instead of the comma then things would be much clearer

When you are unable read what you want without changing what was written by the supremely well-educated, literate, and attentive authors of the Bill of Rights - such as James Madison - you need to take stock of your argument. Do you think they were slipshod, didn't mean what they wrote?

The natural right for the bearing of arms that are not a part of the well regulated militia devoted to defending the free state can be impinged by law

What? Where would you get that from?

A necessary condition is not restricted by what it enables. It comes first. First you have the armed population, then you can raise a well-regulated militia from among them - or do whatever else the securing of freedom requires.

The household cleaning equipment illustration posted earlier: A clean house being necessary for the wellbeing of its inhabitants, the right of the people to keep and bear cleaning equipment shall not be infringed.
I doubt anybody would interpret that as allowing the State to forbid the keeping and bearing of cleaning equipment by people who did not already live in clean houses, eh? That would be a strange misreading, and prevent many people from cleaning their houses.

 

[CptBork]

Yes, sir.

That's why I sit with my back to the wall. Not proudly stupid in a world that will bite you in the ass if you don't think teeth are real.

Well unfortunately, none of us live in an isolated bubble where you don't have to make some form of compromise with the rest of society and place some level of trust in the good intentions of others. If you lived on the moon, it would be different.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Really? None of us? Really?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are not making sense.

When you are unable read what you want without changing what was written by the supremely well-educated, literate, and attentive authors of the Bill of Rights - such as James Madison - you need to take stock of your argument. Do you think they were slipshod, didn't mean what they wrote?

What? Where would you get that from?

A necessary condition is not restricted by what it enables. It comes first. First you have the armed population, then you can raise a well-regulated militia from among them - or do whatever else the securing of freedom requires.

The household cleaning equipment illustration posted earlier: A clean house being necessary for the wellbeing of its inhabitants, the right of the people to keep and bear cleaning equipment shall not be infringed.
I doubt anybody would interpret that as allowing the State to forbid the keeping and bearing of cleaning equipment by people who did not already live in clean houses, eh? That would be a strange misreading, and prevent many people from cleaning their houses.

again you fail to see the distinction between natural rights and artificial rights. Natural rights are necessarily infringed upon by artificial rights/law

 

[Quantum Quack]

When you are unable read what you want without changing what was written by the supremely well-educated, literate, and attentive authors of the Bill of Rights - such as James Madison - you need to take stock of your argument. Do you think they were slipshod, didn't mean what they wrote?

If interpreted the way you suggest there would be no ability to impinge, (which includes regulate, interfere etc) on the bearing of arms by the general population at all ( in absolutum). This is obviously not the case.
You can't have it both ways...

 

[Dr_Toad]

Yep. Rights is granted naturally.

Dude, proofread your vomit.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yep. Rights is granted naturally.

Dude, proofread your vomit.

and so is ignorance and foolishness ... It is after all your natural right to post what you like... so go for it... and see how the artificial fora rules apply.

 

[iceaura]

again you fail to see the distinction between natural rights and artificial rights.

We're talking about the rights possessed by the people and protected by the Constitution of the United States. Those rights. Classify them as you please.

If interpreted the way you suggest there would be no ability to impinge, (which includes regulate, interfere etc) on the bearing of arms by the general population at all ( in absolutum).

All I did was suggest that your desire to "clarify" by altering the wording should serve as a warning to you - Madison was a very competent writer of English prose, and under the circumstances was exerting all his powers to write clearly. It is very unlikely that your changes would clarify a matter he had somehow muddled, and if you think so you are almost certainly misreading the original.

Which I can verify anyway - you are way off track somewhere. No Constitutional rights are absolute - or there could only be one of them. That's a given.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We're talking about the rights possessed by the people and protected by the Constitution of the United States. Those rights. Classify them as you please.
All I did was suggest that your desire to "clarify" by altering the wording should serve as a warning to you - Madison was a very competent writer of English prose, and under the circumstances was exerting all his powers to write clearly. It is very unlikely that your changes would clarify a matter he had somehow muddled, and if you think so you are almost certainly misreading the original.

Which I can verify anyway - you are way off track somewhere. No Constitutional rights are absolute - or there could only be one of them. That's a given.

ok... fair enough...
Given what's happening in the USA today the chances are significantly high that the constitution will become meaningless any way....Trump certainly seems hell bent on ensuring its ultimate irrelevance.

 

[CptBork]

Really? None of us? Really?

I get the feeling you wouldn't change your stance on gun rights in the slightest, even if a brilliant argument were made to convince you that the average US citizen would be safer. Is that the truth? Do you feel that your personal rights take priority over the well-being and safety of the general public at large?

 

[pjdude1219]

I get the feeling you wouldn't change your stance on gun rights in the slightest, even if a brilliant argument were made to convince you that the average US citizen would be safer. Is that the truth? Do you feel that your personal rights take priority over the well-being and safety of the general public at large?

you missing something important. they don't give a damn if it makes them safer, whats important is that it makes them feel safer. just look at the fairly recent poll ( in the last 12 months) that came up with 52% of gunowners felt that mass shootings was just something we had to live with so they could have their guns. you not dealing with a group of people that has any real concern for people outside of themselves.

 

[iceaura]

I get the feeling you wouldn't change your stance on gun rights in the slightest, even if a brilliant argument were made to convince you that the average US citizen would be safer. Is that the truth? Do you feel that your personal rights take priority over the well-being and safety of the general public at large?

Dubious approach.
Quite a few Americans would accept less safety as the price of Constitutional rights, and regard their "wellbeing" as improved in consequence. Consider the landscape in Arlington, Virginia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arlington_National_Cemetery_2012.jpg
There's a famous Ben Franklin quote on the matter, and although it's problematic and nuanced it does come down on the side of Constitutional rights https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

 

[CptBork]

Dubious approach.
Quite a few Americans would accept less safety as the price of Constitutional rights, and regard their "wellbeing" as improved in consequence. Consider the landscape in Arlington, Virginia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arlington_National_Cemetery_2012.jpg
There's a famous Ben Franklin quote on the matter, and although it's problematic and nuanced it does come down on the side of Constitutional rights https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

Liberty can't be exercised unless you're reasonably safe to do so. So the question is whether someone like Dr. Toad thinks his personal feelings of safety override the public's need for security at large. I'm not talking about banning guns in places where the police can't do an effective job, either, but rather about the gun rights Dr. Toad feels people should have in densely populated areas.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Ir is DR, for my first and last names, and toad, because my dear mother calling me a toad one day in the presence of some friends. I've used it as an Internet handle for many years in Spanish, as Sapo.

As to the rest of your "reasoning", leave me out of it: You aren't a psychiatrist, only some dick on the web. I feel safe, but you're the one bitching...

 

[iceaura]

Liberty can't be exercised unless you're reasonably safe to do so.

So overestimations of danger, and exaggerations of harm, threaten the exercise of liberty.

So the question is whether someone like Dr. Toad thinks his personal feelings of safety override the public's need for security at large.

There is also the question of whether someone's personal insecurities and superstitious fears override the American tradition of freedom and liberty at large - not to mention the hardwon political wisdom embodied in the US Constitution.

There's cowardice on bothsides of this one.

 

[CptBork]

Ir is DR, for my first and last names, and toad, because my dear mother calling me a toad one day in the presence of some friends. I've used it as an Internet handle for many years in Spanish, as Sapo.

As to the rest of your "reasoning", leave me out of it: You aren't a psychiatrist, only some dick on the web. I feel safe, but you're the one bitching...

Ok, I apologize for mangling your name and misunderstanding its meaning. I'm not trying to make a psychiatric diagnosis, I'm trying to understand your moral position. If some genius were able to convince you that tighter gun restrictions would halve the rate of violent crime and murder across the US in every single jurisdiction, but you'd have to trust the police with handling most of your security matters, would that change your opinion on gun laws?

There's no point in trying to argue with you about gun stats if they wouldn't make a difference anyhow.

 

[Dr_Toad]

you'd have to trust the police with handling most of your security matters

There's the crux of the biscuit. Hell, no, I don't "trust the police". Why should I when they're minutes away from a situation that requires immediate response?

Edit: Why the fuck do you think it's an arguable position, anyway? Why in the world would a rational human wait for the police when they're under imminent threat, hoping that the almighty police don't think it's enough of a problem to warrant code 3 response, or that 911 dispatch didn't hire someone that "doesn't have time for this" call, and hangs up on you?

Nothing to argue about there, halfwit. I'll tend to my own business.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nothing to argue about there, halfwit. I'll tend to my own business.

what a way to live!
In constant and extreme fear of strangers knocking on your door.... a fear exemplified by the guns pointing at the door.... and to think others probably fear you even more. guns pointing at guns pointing at guns. The bigger the better.

You ever been over seas to a nation that welcomes strangers? Like Australia, UK, Germany, France, eh...and so on...
My guess is that you have never known life free of such fear.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It takes courage to be a world leader...

 

[CptBork]

There's the crux of the biscuit. Hell, no, I don't "trust the police". Why should I when they're minutes away from a situation that requires immediate response?

Edit: Why the fuck do you think it's an arguable position, anyway? Why in the world would a rational human wait for the police when they're under imminent threat, hoping that the almighty police don't think it's enough of a problem to warrant code 3 response, or that 911 dispatch didn't hire someone that "doesn't have time for this" call, and hangs up on you?

Nothing to argue about there, halfwit. I'll tend to my own business.

So even if there were indisputable statistics and logical arguments to show that the average citizen anywhere in the US would be far safer in a restricted gun society, it's irrelevant to you as long as you personally feel more secure the way things are, even if there's no specific imminent threat to your well-being. Is that correct?