1. The second prompt is revealed! (Q2 2018)

    "Breaking into Snape's office in the middle of the night was a risky move at the best of times..."

    Deadline is June 18th, also known as the 22nd Anniversary of a seriously sad day—a tremendously black day for anyone.

    As with before you can check out the new thread discussing scoring, rules, and other such matters in the in the Story Competitions forum.

    Dismiss Notice

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. deyas

    deyas Sixth Year

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    180
    Location:
    Farmington, New Mexico
    What is an "element of freedom," out of curiosity? Also, I think you may be being a bit reactive, here. As I read it, Revan did not state that we have to prove that a right is legitimate, merely that those rights can be lawfully restricted, where we as a society (or our elected officials/appointed judges, to be pedantic) decide.

    Unless you're arguing that... I don't know, interpretations of the rights our constitution endows us with have no place in our system of law? I don't think that's the case, but I'm having a hard time seeing where you're coming from on this one. The only other thing I can maybe see here is that you're arguing purely from a stance of ideological purity, which has a place, but it isn't terribly helpful when trying to determine laws.

    Edit: For clarification, I'm pro-gun, but believe as has been previously stated and restated in this thread that gun owners, and most assuredly the gun's themselves, should be on a type of national registry. That, and a common sense class in safely owning and operating a firearm should be mandatory. For these things to work in any type of efficient manner, of course, the ATF would require a great deal more funding.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  2. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,074
    High Score:
    2,058
    What he's arguing is that a legitimate reason must be given to keep the right to own an automatic weapon. I'm arguing that the burden of proof is on him for removing the right to own an automatic weapon. The basis of this argument for me is that humans in the American system of government have full and complete rights. What is a right? It is the freedom to do anything and everything they desire unless it conflicts with already established laws. Furthermore, such laws should only be established when it is provable that removing such rights has a greater benefit to society at large than allowing the creator-endowed rights to remain with the individual (as expressed in the Dec. of Indep. I express it this way not to argue for a deity or Christianity within government, but rather, to argue the foundation of all rights and thus, freedom in US law is understood as something inherent in the general make-up of each human).

    As such, until he can provide evidence that remove class 3 weapons completely will be better for society, it is against the very fabric of the constitution to further reduce the right. (And, he can't, as there's only been 2 crimes over 85 years with legitimately owned class three weapons—I came upon some updated data from what I thought was 0 crimes).
     
  3. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    874
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, the biggest problem with the whole gun issue is that it's gotten so ridiculously polarized that any sort of reasonable common-sense measure gets torn apart by both sides.

    Gun Safety Classes
    Extreme Liberals: So we're indoctrinating people into gun culture now?! Besides, guns can never be safe! They murder children!
    Extreme Conservatives: I'm all for gun safety, but I don't want the government telling me how to do it in mandatory classes.

    Registration
    Extreme Conservatives: So the government will have a list to confiscate all our guns?!
    Extreme Liberals: What a great way for the government to start making a list of guns to eventually confiscate!

    Any Restrictions on Firearm Classes
    Extreme Conservatives: These rules are nonsensical and overly restrictive.
    Extreme Liberals: These rules and nonsensical and don't go far enough.

    And so on...

    Bottom line, the extremes on both sides have made it very hard to actually move towards a solution, and are likely to continue doing so for the forseeable future.
     
  4. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    562
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    I'm arguing from the standpoint of Scalia's "Rights v. Privileges" argument. Your rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and even then they're not unlimited, they're all subject to reasonable regulation. You have the right to speak, assemble, etc. in the First Amendment, but you don't have the right to yell "Kill the pigs!" while you're protesting the police. You have the right against warrantless searches of your person or property unless you're given a Terry stop. Etc.

    Just so with the Second. You have the right "to keep and bear arms". Not "to keep and bear an AR15 with a laser sight". If we as a polity vote to restrict access to one type of gun because we feel like it, but you can still access another, then your "right" hasn't been infringed. Your privileges under that right have been reduced. You have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to democratically define how those rights work, through regulations, through legislation, and through the courts. Your "unalienable right" to own a gun was determined in Heller only a few years ago, so don't pretend to me that your rights don't change and evolve over time through the actions of our institutions.
    --- Post automerged ---
    Morality has absolutely evolved over time. It was totally cool in Spain during the Inquisition to burn heretics. Now that's a huge party foul.

    "Human rights" is a concept barely a century old.
     
  5. awinarock

    awinarock Heir

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,609
    Location:
    Texas
    That's true, but there's a part of the Heller case that I wanted to highlight.

    I'd like to focus on the first bolded bit first. Doesn't this also apply to assault rifles as you're essentially banning an entire class of "arms" that a significant number of Americans choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

    That's true, but there's a part of the Heller case that I wanted to ask about.

    I'd like to focus on the first bolded bit. Doesn't this also apply to assault rifles as you're essentially banning an entire class of "arms" that a significant number of Americans choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

    The second bolded bit is something Joe's Nemesis or someone more informed about assault rifle gun bans may be able to answer, but aren't a lot of the regulations involving bans on certain mods or whatever on handguns or assault rifles out of lockstep with what gun owners need or want to improve the usage of their gun?
     
  6. Arthellion

    Arthellion Death Eater

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    That doesn’t mean it actual was moral to burn heretics at the state. Just because the widespread belief supported it does not make it right. There were those who considered it wrong.

    The public awareness of morality has changed but morality hasn’t. It was always wrong to rape a child and it always will be regardless of public opinion.

    Morality is like math. It’s real and unchanging and would exist even if humanity didn’t. It’s up to us to discover it through.
     
  7. Solfege

    Solfege Auror DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Let's not bring math into the equation, please.

    There's a pretty fundamental question about this for any mathematical practitioner, Platonists vs. non-Platonists - playing around in a sandbox of objects that's conveniently consistent may not mean it exists apart from that fleeting convenience. Or, if it is empirical consistency you are after, see any variant on The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics. Or, if you are merely referring to the narrower set of facts, in which we can colloquially say 2 + 2 = 4, one might just as well whip up an alternative counting system where 2 + 2 might be 5. Or 0.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  8. Arthellion

    Arthellion Death Eater

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    I’ll simply offer that I fully endorse the relativity of language.

    The universe possesses fundamental laws regardless of what name or value we actually assign to these laws.
     
  9. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid First Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd disagree that morality is one of those laws. The same goes with rights.
     
  10. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    874
    High Score:
    1,802
    Actually, you can shout "Kill the pigs!" at a protest as long as you're not directly threatening individuals or inciting imminent violence. Probably—the exact context would matter. (That said, just because you might win if it went before the Supreme Court doesn't mean it's not a phenomenally bad idea to do something like that).

    While second amendment rights can be regulated, there are pretty sharp limits to how far said regulations go and those regulations need to pass all the usual levels of scrutiny applied to anything touching on the bill of rights. Per Heller, you can't use such regulation to impose an effective ban, just like you can't use the "Time, place, and manner" restrictions on Free Speech to effectively stop a group from expressing their opinion. You'd also need to articulate a clear public good, which the legislation is narrowly tailored to serve.

    Assuming Joe's Nemesis is right with his stats about how legally owned class 3 weapons have been used in all of 2 crimes in the last 85 years, I don't see much of a case to be made for how banning them is going to substantially improve the public good, or how such a ban is a narrowly tailored solution.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  11. Arthellion

    Arthellion Death Eater

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    That's your right :sherlock:

    That said...if morality is not an objective truth then from where do you get the authority to make moral judgements or claims?
     
  12. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    894
    Location:
    The Shire
    High Score:
    9,373
    From our own moral compasses and the ethics we have derived through upbringing and culture. You don't need an objective truth to derive morality from. You're taught by your family and the wider society around you in how to behave, how to think and what is socially acceptable. We're not just automatons parroting the teachings of our parents, though, so each lesson taught is filtered through a lens specific to each individual and adapted to their worldview (or their worldview is adapted to it, usually in unique ways). This then translates to a person's ethics and morality, which forms over the course of their life and is ever changing to take into account new situations.

    I.e. People make their own morals.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion Death Eater

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    917
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    You still did not answer the question. You only answered where you receive your own basic beliefs from. Where do you get the authority to make moral judgements that effect the lives of others? The majority of the USA up until recently believed homosexuality to be immoral and should be illegal. What gave the minority the authority to make it legal?
     
  14. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid First Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Same place you get yours from, a combination of the individual self coupled with society. As for the authority itself? That also comes from society. Nobody has intrinsic authority. The people around you grant it to you based on your ability to influence them, hopefully through logic and reasoning. Politics and government is an extension of this.

    Your system appears to be a claim to an objective truth that other people just don't or can't see. But given your religious leanings that view isn't all that surprising.

    edit: I only bring it up because of its similarities to rights. "Natural rights" don't really exist. They are privileges that we have agreed to grant further protections and to treat as if they actually were real underlying laws. Joe's Nemesis asked why should those machine guns be banned if only 2 crimes were committed. The answer is the same reason we don't let have people have much bigger weapons. Your right to protect yourself is still sufficiently maintained with the other options that are available without needing to have access to weapons with much greater potential downsides if abused. Which would be DR's Scalia argument. We get to choose what that right ends up looking like in practice. It's not some default state of the universe.

    It also seemed to me that based on the data presented that the strict restriction on machine guns has led to them being expensive and difficult to obtain leading to very few having them, therefor few being able to use them. When you combine this with the fact that rich, patient, law abiding citizens are not usually the demographic for gun crime it means that possible machine gun crimes are instead...handgun crimes or crimes committed with some sort of modification to power up the gun in some way. Hell, Joe's Nemesis said himself that he specifically used a bump-stock modification because he couldn't afford the machine gun. If anything it seems like an argument for more regulation to other types of guns than a reason we should be having less regulation for machine guns.

    It's strange how we can reach such different conclusions. Probably why this issue sucks so much.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  15. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    894
    Location:
    The Shire
    High Score:
    9,373
    I did, you just parsed it through a framework of objective morality. My argument is that moral judgements can only be made from your own moral code as each person's morality is specific to them and them alone. Whether that gives you the right to enforce those judgements on others is a completely separate argument that is dependent on the amount of political power you have and the culture in which you live. I have the right to try and enforce my view of the world on others through my country's representative democracy and the legal framework that has been built up around it.

    There's nothing more to it than that because the only authority we have is that given to us by other people. Taking your example of homosexuality in the US, each person has the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In previous decades LGBT people were pretty much unable to make their voices heard through this legal framework because the culture of the time didn't allow it. They weren't given enough authority to make people listen to them. With time and acceptance (the media and pop culture of the 80s/90s helped in this regard) LGBTs were given greater authority to act as spokespeople for their demographic, which forced people to listen to them. From there it was simply a matter of amassing political power to the point where they could convince enough people that they deserved to be able to marry, which then became a matter for the representatives, and so on.

    That's it. That's how you enforce your morality on others. By convincing enough people that your morality is something to listen to until you're given the authority to enforce it on people who don't necessarily believe it. It's not always a good thing, but that's why we have laws, representatives, governments. It's also why having an objective morality involved with government will never work well. People change too much for an objective morality to retain its shape and still work well for the majority. Better to have government that changes with the people, with safeguards included that protect those who don't have a large enough voice.
     
  16. Alistair

    Alistair First Year

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    37
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a slippery slope trying to ban things purely because they could be dangerous. Case in point for in the UK. The government has decided, in their wisdom, that civilians shouldn't be allowed .50 calibre rifles, because, and I quote " The range and penetrative power of 0.50 calibre rifles makes them more dangerous than other common firearms and were they to be used in criminal or terrorist activities would present a serious threat to the public and would be uniquely difficult for the police to control."

    Essentially the argument is that .50 calibres are a potential issue and should be banned. There was some waffling about their 'military origins' as well, but that's the basic point. The reason why this has been brought up now is because a .50 was stolen from a firearms dealer a few months ago.

    Some context to the issue. There are a grand total of 64 .50 calibre rifles in public ownership in the UK today, and an estimated further 12 for sale at firearms dealers. It is also worth noting that there has never, ever been a crime committed with a .50 in the UK. Ever. Not one. The one which was recenty stolen was recovered having never fired a shot because, amazingly, there are very few vendors for the required ammo or reloading equipment. You can only buy ammo from registered dealers, you have to do it face to face, and they know all the legal owners personally. So you're stuck. You can source a reloading press to make the ammo, but again, no-one stocks components and you've got to buy the powder and primers face to face anyway, which requires you to show your FAC. Effectively, even if you have a .50 in the UK, the only way to source ammo is to illegally source and import some from Europe or the US, and if you've got the contacts to do it and you'll take that risk, why not just import a rifle as well?

    Therefore, even ignoring that a 4ft long, 20lb scoped bolt-action rifle is pretty must the worst possible tool to use for a 'normal' firearms related crime (Robbery, 'violence against the person'), it is pretty clear that there is no immediate risk from .50s, that current security measures are entirely sufficient, and that banning them cannot demonstrably be in the public good because, well, no crime has ever been committed to support the statement. So, that being the case and ignoring the loss of yet another fun hobby that UK shooters currently carry out every week without issue, how much is it going to cost the taxpayer? £3 Million apparently. Money well spent? Hmm.

    Oh, and fun fact, in the UK in 2016/17, the most common type of non-airgun firearm used in crime was handguns, accounting for just over 40% of all recorded incidents. They were banned in the UK in 1996...
     
  17. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    562
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Of course it was moral. It was "mandated by God!" Burn the witch!

    Widespread beliefs are what collective societal mores are. That's why morality evolves over the centuries; each new generation evolves in its beliefs and establishes new standards for behavior.

    You asked why suddenly society decided homosexuality went from immoral to moral to accept. Simple: Old people died. Younger people are more accepting of others' sexuality. Poof. New moral paradigm.
     
  18. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather Seventh Year Prestige

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011

    I see what you did there Darth.
     
  19. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,074
    High Score:
    2,058
    LMAO. Witch hunting was primarily an enlightenment era past time, contrary to popular belief. And it's late, so I'll get to your earlier post tomorrow.
     
  20. Hw597

    Hw597 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    London
    I have come to the conclusion that it is possible to make perfectly logical explanations for nearly anything. Sometimes it is actually better to just go on gut. So this is mine in regards to Guns

    Have it the same as driving. A renewed license system that has to be entirely focused around safety. You have every right to gun, you just have to prove you can safely use it, store it and dispose of it.

    Evidence of storage.
    Evidence of proficiency
    Scales with the type of weapon.

    The overall problem is that the number of guns in the country needs to go down dramatically. So make efforts to break the obsession with it in the culture. Harder to get + More expensive + Less places you can use it + non-transferable.
     
Loading...