2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Yes, our constitution was based, at least in part, on the "contract" theory of government, developed by (I think), John Locke. The Declaration of Independance is clearer on it.

Guess who's signature does not appear on the Declaration or the Constitution? Influenced, yes. Wrote? No. Locke's contract was an implicit thing. It probly shocked quite a few Lockians when the US went and wrote theirs down.

Also, the Declaration was an act of revolution, the Constitution created a government. The former has no bearing on the interpretation of the latter.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

So, let's argue unintentional deaths from automobiles. I postulate, without any hard evidence, that the majority of vechicle deaths AREN'T from the transportation of goods, emergency vechicles and other governmental services. Given that, then the vast majority of vechicle deaths are due to the convient use of vechicles as transportation. We, as Americans are willing to accept this death toll for the sake of convience.

How do you like them apples?(bold added)

I'd like them fine...except they aren't apples. I don't know if you set out to refute my point, but your analogy actually reinforces it.

Seriously, you haven't addressed the point. Automobiles, again, were not intended to kill people. How many accidental deaths occur from automobile use--be it necessary or recreational--is not the point. The point is that the intended function of the automobile is not to kill or injure.

What is the intended function for firearms? Can you fix a sink with a Tec9? Bring home the groceries? Balance your checkbook? Hit a homerun? Cut up a chicken for the pot?

Do firearms have in fact any other function besides killing things, be they animal or human? I will answer the rhetorical question: No. They do not. Killing is what they were designed to do, and many many man hours of engineering have been put into making them more efficient at that particular task--and no other.

So you can't compare guns with, say, baseball bats or hammers or kitchen knives or any of the other common comparisons trotted out by the pro-gun advocates, because those objects have other primary functions. Guns have no other primary function, and so the comparison is purely spurious.

Apples remain apples and oranges remain oranges, my friend.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Plus the inevitable post bringing up arrows, which also are made with just one purpose in mind...or swords, for that matter...and asking whether the people advocating gun control on those grounds also advocate restricting archery and fencing.

The grounds for derogating firearms seem to shift with some regularity, a sure sign of situational ethics at play. First it's "people kill each other with guns, so they're bad for society". Then someone points out the many other things so used. That's when the argument changes to this "but guns are MADE to kill, so they're bad for society!" tack...

Inq, see the above response to Schiavona. The fact that guns are made to kill is not a "secondary" position taken because the primary one has proven untenable--which has not been demonstrated, BTW--but is, in fact, the pivotal point.

Yes, "people kill people" as the old chestnut says, and if you're determined to kill someone you will find a tool for doing it. Almost anything can be bent to lethal use, given a little ingenuity.

But why do we insist on giving everyone easy access to a tool made specifically for killing? I thought we were all agreed that people killing each other is a Bad Thing and we should be trying to prevent it--not make it easier.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Plus the inevitable post bringing up arrows, which also are made with just one purpose in mind...or swords, for that matter...and asking whether the people advocating gun control on those grounds also advocate restricting archery and fencing. (bold added)

By the way, the same arguement can be made for swords and bows. However, the urgency of the arguement is somewhat mitigated because it is difficult to conceal a bow and arrow or a sword on your person--in direct contrast to a snub-nosed .38, for example.

The spurious equating of "swords" with "fencing" I will pass over without comment.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

But why do we insist on giving everyone easy access to a tool made specifically for killing? I thought we were all agreed that people killing each other is a Bad Thing and we should be trying to prevent it--not make it easier.

Why? Because when you're dealing with something as important as a life, you ought to have the best tool for the job.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

So, now we take hints in jurisprudence from Al Capone? :-)

Incomplete thought. I was tired The point I was tring to make is that prohibition accomplished nothing but giving crime a very lucrative reason to consolidate.

[jeff]

That's cool - I was being flippant anyway. I believe it was Capone that said " You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun".

I would say that prohibition is a valid and interesting topic for a thread, but not exactly the same as discussiing the 2nd amendment.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Guess who's signature does not appear on the Declaration or the Constitution? Influenced, yes. Wrote? No. Locke's contract was an implicit thing. It probly shocked quite a few Lockians when the US went and wrote theirs down.

Many, many people influenced the Declaration of Independance and didn't sign it. Patrick Henry unquestionably influenced it, yet his signature is also missing. I never said he wrote it, or had any firsthand part in its design. But his philosophy was very influential on the Constitution.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Also, the Declaration was an act of revolution, the Constitution created a government. The former has no bearing on the interpretation of the latter.

Not directly, no. But if you want to find the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as was my intention, the Declaration of Independance is probably the best place to look. The Declaration of Independance was the philosophy of government used, and the Constitution was its interpretation into an actual government. So as I said, the Declaration of Independance is possibly the best source of interpretation of general philosophies implied, but not mentioned, in the Constitution.


(New record for most times using a form of the word "intent" in a post. I need a Thesaurus...)

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by Gav

Oh, nearly forgot to say. The idea behind the bill is to ban the sale of antique or replica weapons. It's a kneee jerk reaction to some media frenzy about recent stabbings. Y'know the sort of unbiased reporting: "he was a caring soul who never hurt anyone" accompanied by many photo's of teary eyed family members in tracksuits. What the bill fails to address is the fact that the vast majority of stab wounds are inflicted with normal kitcen knives. I suppose that because nobody cooks anymore [apart from me, and fat blokes called Chef) that we don't need to buy kitchen knives.

Sounds like the knee jerk reaction in the US to repeat criminals killing with guns.
"If he hadn't had a gun so readily available he would have done something good with his life."
So, if the US bans gun in a similar way the UK has, is it only a matter of time till they come for my 2-handed broad sword? Hanging beautifully over the hearth I might add.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

But why do we insist on giving everyone easy access to a tool made specifically for killing?

Why should I be prevented from getting a tool that may save my life and/or my family's lives one day?

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I thought we were all agreed that people killing each other is a Bad Thing and we should be trying to prevent it--not make it easier.

"I want to kill that guy! Hmm, if I only had a gun and not this
baseball bat/butcher knife/pipe/pencil.
Well, he's lucky today."

If someone wants to kill they will do it.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

But if you want to find the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as was my intention, the Declaration of Independance is probably the best place to look.

Actually The Federalist Papers are the best place to look. Their entire purpose was to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Actually The Federalist Papers are the best place to look. Their entire purpose was to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution.

I can't say I've read the Federalist Papers, but I do know enough about them to know that they don't represent the unanimous veiwpoint of the Convention; as a matter of fact, many of the points they discussed became the issues dividing the first political parties.

But good point.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

the unanimous veiwpoint of the Convention

Umm... unless we're talking about a different convention here, there really weren't any unanimous viewpoints, except possibly for the view that something should be done.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Umm... unless we're talking about a different convention here, there really weren't any unanimous viewpoints, except possibly for the view that something should be done.

Yeah. I'm really incoherent today. Sorry. Let me attempt to rephrase.

Most of the issues discussed in the Federalist Papers were particularly dividing in the Constitutional Convention, and that is part of the reason for why they were written.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Why? Because when you're dealing with something as important as a life, you ought to have the best tool for the job.

Best tool for which job? Per design, guns only serve for the taking of life...was that the job you meant?

(So much for life being "important", I guess...)

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Umm... unless we're talking about a different convention here, there really weren't any unanimous viewpoints, except possibly for the view that something should be done.

What he said.

Nevertheless, The Federalist Papers are the best source for explanation of the intent of the writers of the Constitution.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Why should I be prevented from getting a tool that may save my life and/or my family's lives one day?

Um, because it might just as likely be used to kill yourself or one of your family, either accidently or deliberately? The statistics that someone cited above would seem to indicate that that scenario is as likely as the one in which you save yourself or your family from injury or death.

"I want to kill that guy! Hmm, if I only had a gun and not this
baseball bat/butcher knife/pipe/pencil.
Well, he's lucky today."

If someone wants to kill they will do it.

Something I've already acknowledged. Guns don't cause people to kill people, they just make it easier--which should be self-evident, since that's what they're made for.

I submit that perhaps we shouldn't be making it easier for people to kill people, but rather more difficult.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Best tool for which job? Per design, guns only serve for the taking of life...was that the job you meant?

(So much for life being "important", I guess...)

Well, that would be good in a perfect world, however for the real world we do live in, sometimes people need to kill each other (or at least threaten to kill each other). Many people use guns as tools for their jobs every day. I'm sure most policemen would rather never have to shoot a person, but they carry guns because should there be a situation where they need to, they need to have the best possible tool for striking a person down.
It's not desired, but certainly you must acknowledge that there are times when people have to be killed (imagine a kill or be killed scenario), and in that situation, everyone should have the chance to preserve their own existence, or protect others. Sometimes things must be done by force, and that's why people need guns.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Well, that would be good in a perfect world, however for the real world we do live in, sometimes people need to kill each other (or at least threaten to kill each other). Many people use guns as tools for their jobs every day. I'm sure most policemen would rather never have to shoot a person, but they carry guns because should there be a situation where they need to, they need to have the best possible tool for striking a person down.

I acknowledge that a case can be made for security officers and police requiring guns for their work.

However, the fact that "many people use guns as tools for their jobs" isn't a relevant argument here, since that is not what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about the right of ordinary civilians to own guns--guns which often rival or surpass those carried by public safety officers.

Bringing the police and military into the conversation is merely a red herring.

It's not desired, but certainly you must acknowledge that there are times when people have to be killed (imagine a kill or be killed scenario), and in that situation, everyone should have the chance to preserve their own existence, or protect others.

..."everyone" presumably including the Bad Guy who feels it necessary to kill you to preserve his life?

Sometimes things must be done by force, and that's why people need guns.

I'm sure the Bad Guy feels the same way--force is needed to separate you from your property, and a gun is therefore the obvious tool of choice to do that job in the most efficient manner.

As attractive as the arguement appears to be on its surface, making firearms readily available for everyone's protection can't make you safer because the very same firearms are just as readily available to anyone who wishes to harm you.

In fact, it could be argued that easy availability of guns for everyone actually makes it more rather than less likely that any confrontational situation you find yourself in will devolve into a "kill or be killed" scenario--with you just as likely to be on the losing end as the other guy.