Teen Gunman Kills 5 - Page 4

Meadmaker · 22nd January 2013, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

What makes a machine gun not an "arms" that can be protected in possession?

The Miller decision.

As for the general contention that the Constitution doesn't grant a right to bear arms, but merely recognizes or affirms it, I find it silly.

The theory is based on the idea of natural rights, endowed by our creator, which governments are morally bound to recognize. If the government violates such a natural right, then the government is not legitimate. (That among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...etc.)

The problem with including firearm ownership in that list is that it asserts there is a natural right with which we have been endowed by our creator, but our creator somehow endowed us with it some time around the 14th century, but only if we can afford it. Including firearm ownership in the list of natural rights says that a technological innovation that appeared in the middle ages is a natural right. That's absurd.

One could, if one thought about it, come up with something that would make sense to claim as a natural right, and then assert that such a right cannot be achieved unless allowed to purchase and keep a firearm. Of course, no one wants to do that, because it would be acknowledging that if the firearm did not secure the natural right, or if the right could be secured without firearms, then there is no natural right to firearms.

There is, in the United States, a legal right to own a handgun, so long as five Supreme Court justices agree that there is such a right. That right is granted, not recognized, in the Constitution.

appalling · 22nd January 2013, 06:32 PM

Same with dangerous radioactive metals.

People had clear rights to own them at various points in history.

BenBurch · 22nd January 2013, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by appalling

Same with dangerous radioactive metals.

People had clear rights to own them at various points in history.

And you could even get radium tonic water. Yummy!

BenBurch · 22nd January 2013, 07:04 PM

Ok, and here; http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...d/1388?image=0

I actually HAD the atomic energy lab kit. It seriously did have some radium in it! And uranium ore. The cloud chamber worked (dry ice was hard to get when you are nine) and the uranium darkened photographic paper. I also had a large piece of trinitite that I wish I knew what happened to now.

Lowpro · 22nd January 2013, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The Miller decision.

I understand but my response is actually to BStrong's suggestions on gun law changes:

Originally Posted by BStrong

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

This would probably mean Miller wouldn't apply anymore.

ben m · 22nd January 2013, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The problem with including firearm ownership in that list is that it asserts there is a natural right with which we have been endowed by our creator, but our creator somehow endowed us with it some time around the 14th century, but only if we can afford it. Including firearm ownership in the list of natural rights says that a technological innovation that appeared in the middle ages is a natural right. That's absurd.

Good point.

And the Founding Fathers certainly didn't say it was a natural right. In fact, they explained exactly what they were thinking

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State

That's not how you preface a statement of a "natural right". That's how you preface a practical detail of how the country will be run and defended. The Founders chose to mention a sadly-1776-specific practical detail: that this "well regulated militia" required "the people" to "keep and bear arms" somehow. Maybe that was true in 1776, but it's not true any more.

Here's an analogy I heard somewhere. Imagine that in 1776 (and this is, or was, true) pale skin was fashionable. Imagine (and this is also true) that a sub-lethal case of mercury poisoning makes you, as desired, ghostly pale. Imagine that (and this is not true) in 1772, a bunch of sunburned hick "colonists", using mercury to pass for pale Englishmen, had somehow offended King George III. England, in response, wished to force the hicks to look like hicks---and banned mercury-cream. This is seen as an outrage; it sparks pro-mercury riots; mercury is thrown in Boston Harbor; and we decide that our right of fashion self-determination has been grossly violated. When writing the Constitution, some parties fear that an aristocratic Congress might someday reinstate a mercury ban. They write the following into the bill of rights:

Amendment 2. The following of Fashion, being necessary to the fabulousness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and apply Mercury Creams shall not be infringed.

Imagine that in 1950 mercury isn't used for paleness any more, but rather is a popular rose-garden pesticide ... which is killing 30,000 people per year. How important is that "right to mercury creams" in that amendment? Surely the amendment is really about freedom of appearance, and the detail about mercury cream is a 1776-specific anachronism? Well, the National ~~Rifle~~ Rosegarden Association doesn't think so, and you'll have to pry their backpack-mounted pneumatic mercury-sprayers from their cold and fashionably-pale dead hands.

triforcharity · 22nd January 2013, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

But comparing guns to swimming pools is perfectly okay.

Says the side who's compared guns to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and
radioactive metals.....

triforcharity · 22nd January 2013, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Illegal drugs haven't always been illegal. Our ancestors had a right to smoke marijuana. today, we don't.

It seems like a fairly reasonable equivalency to me.

And what part of the BoR does that fall under?

Not that I agree with arbitrary drugs laws, but none the less, it's a terrible comparison....

Polaris · 23rd January 2013, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by appalling

Same with dangerous radioactive metals.

People had clear rights to own them at various points in history.

You can buy uranium ore on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Uranium-Ore/dp...ds=uranium+ore

Just for giggles, here's the rest of the search page I got when I entered "uranium ore" into their engine:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...um%2Caps%2C224

Nihilianth · 23rd January 2013, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun.

22nd January 2013, 06:31 PM	#121
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,453	Originally Posted by Lowpro What makes a machine gun not an "arms" that can be protected in possession? The Miller decision. As for the general contention that the Constitution doesn't grant a right to bear arms, but merely recognizes or affirms it, I find it silly. The theory is based on the idea of natural rights, endowed by our creator, which governments are morally bound to recognize. If the government violates such a natural right, then the government is not legitimate. (That among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...etc.) The problem with including firearm ownership in that list is that it asserts there is a natural right with which we have been endowed by our creator, but our creator somehow endowed us with it some time around the 14th century, but only if we can afford it. Including firearm ownership in the list of natural rights says that a technological innovation that appeared in the middle ages is a natural right. That's absurd. One could, if one thought about it, come up with something that would make sense to claim as a natural right, and then assert that such a right cannot be achieved unless allowed to purchase and keep a firearm. Of course, no one wants to do that, because it would be acknowledging that if the firearm did not secure the natural right, or if the right could be secured without firearms, then there is no natural right to firearms. There is, in the United States, a legal right to own a handgun, so long as five Supreme Court justices agree that there is such a right. That right is granted, not recognized, in the Constitution.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

22nd January 2013, 06:58 PM	#123
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,222	Originally Posted by appalling Same with dangerous radioactive metals. People had clear rights to own them at various points in history. And you could even get radium tonic water. Yummy!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

22nd January 2013, 07:04 PM	#124
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,222	Ok, and here; http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...d/1388?image=0 I actually HAD the atomic energy lab kit. It seriously did have some radium in it! And uranium ore. The cloud chamber worked (dry ice was hard to get when you are nine) and the uranium darkened photographic paper. I also had a large piece of trinitite that I wish I knew what happened to now.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

22nd January 2013, 07:20 PM	#125
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,543	Originally Posted by Meadmaker The Miller decision. I understand but my response is actually to BStrong's suggestions on gun law changes: Originally Posted by BStrong NFA weapons and devices - Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion. This would probably mean Miller wouldn't apply anymore.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

22nd January 2013, 07:20 PM	#126
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658	Originally Posted by Meadmaker The problem with including firearm ownership in that list is that it asserts there is a natural right with which we have been endowed by our creator, but our creator somehow endowed us with it some time around the 14th century, but only if we can afford it. Including firearm ownership in the list of natural rights says that a technological innovation that appeared in the middle ages is a natural right. That's absurd. Good point. And the Founding Fathers certainly didn't say it was a natural right. In fact, they explained exactly what they were thinking Quote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State That's not how you preface a statement of a "natural right". That's how you preface a practical detail of how the country will be run and defended. The Founders chose to mention a sadly-1776-specific practical detail: that this "well regulated militia" required "the people" to "keep and bear arms" somehow. Maybe that was true in 1776, but it's not true any more. Here's an analogy I heard somewhere. Imagine that in 1776 (and this is, or was, true) pale skin was fashionable. Imagine (and this is also true) that a sub-lethal case of mercury poisoning makes you, as desired, ghostly pale. Imagine that (and this is not true) in 1772, a bunch of sunburned hick "colonists", using mercury to pass for pale Englishmen, had somehow offended King George III. England, in response, wished to force the hicks to look like hicks---and banned mercury-cream. This is seen as an outrage; it sparks pro-mercury riots; mercury is thrown in Boston Harbor; and we decide that our right of fashion self-determination has been grossly violated. When writing the Constitution, some parties fear that an aristocratic Congress might someday reinstate a mercury ban. They write the following into the bill of rights: Amendment 2. The following of Fashion, being necessary to the fabulousness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and apply Mercury Creams shall not be infringed. Imagine that in 1950 mercury isn't used for paleness any more, but rather is a popular rose-garden pesticide ... which is killing 30,000 people per year. How important is that "right to mercury creams" in that amendment? Surely the amendment is really about freedom of appearance, and the detail about mercury cream is a 1776-specific anachronism? Well, the National ~~Rifle~~ Rosegarden Association doesn't think so, and you'll have to pry their backpack-mounted pneumatic mercury-sprayers from their cold and fashionably-pale dead hands.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,658	Last edited by ben m; 22nd January 2013 at 07:29 PM.

22nd January 2013, 06:32 PM	#122
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Same with dangerous radioactive metals. People had clear rights to own them at various points in history.

22nd January 2013, 07:42 PM	#127
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by lionking But comparing guns to swimming pools is perfectly okay. Says the side who's compared guns to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and radioactive metals.....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

22nd January 2013, 07:44 PM	#128
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Illegal drugs haven't always been illegal. Our ancestors had a right to smoke marijuana. today, we don't. It seems like a fairly reasonable equivalency to me. And what part of the BoR does that fall under? Not that I agree with arbitrary drugs laws, but none the less, it's a terrible comparison....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

23rd January 2013, 10:15 AM	#129
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	Originally Posted by appalling Same with dangerous radioactive metals. People had clear rights to own them at various points in history. You can buy uranium ore on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Uranium-Ore/dp...ds=uranium+ore Just for giggles, here's the rest of the search page I got when I entered "uranium ore" into their engine: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...um%2Caps%2C224
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,171	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

23rd January 2013, 11:36 PM	#130
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,224	Originally Posted by Lowpro Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun.