• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 yr old shot two weeks after 2 yr old

You are fundamentally wrong about “Rights”. The State does not grant you rights, it is supposed to uphold and protect them.

If the citizenry of another country is complacent in allowing the State to say “you can’t have this right” then that citizenry gets the society it deserves. It may be a “Utopian” type society for a while but that will not last, as history has shown again and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Nope, a right is what the state you live in grants you to do.

A philosophical "right" is nothing of the kind if it can't be exercised.


The citizenry of the USA only enjoys the rights that the US government allows them to have.
 
No, you said in post #598 that:

"...the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right is not dependent on the constitution..."


This is wrong and a lie. As posted from THREE separate sources the SC did NOT rule that and cited the 2nd Amendment as the justification to what it did rule.,

Are you still refusing to accept that what you said was wrong.

92 US at 553


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
 
Nope, a right is what the state you live in grants you to do.

A philosophical "right" is nothing of the kind if it can't be exercised.


The citizenry of the USA only enjoys the rights that the US government allows them to have.

That (bolded above) is true, yet once the US (federal or state) government decides that it may violate the Constitution then one best hope that it has not first disarmed the population.
 
That (bolded above) is true, yet once the US (federal or state) government decides that it may violate the Constitution then one best hope that it has not first disarmed the population.

And what would you do to overthrow the "tyrant" ?

12744052_1148236958574260_4567975910961816853_n.jpg
 
92 US at 553


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution...


FFS

The second amendment protects your right to own a firearm, who says so, why the Supreme Court of the USA


...the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right is not dependent on the constitution...


Post #598

The ruling of the SC said it was - so will you now admit you were WRONG ?
 
Nope, a right is what the state you live in grants you to do.

A philosophical "right" is nothing of the kind if it can't be exercised.


The citizenry of the USA only enjoys the rights that the US government allows them to have.

Interesting... so according to you.. Segregation did not violate African American"s rights?

I suppose Slavery.. since it was legal at the time... was not a human rights violation according to you?

Please explain.
 
Interesting... so according to you.. Segregation did not violate African American"s rights?

I suppose Slavery.. since it was legal at the time... was not a human rights violation according to you?

Please explain.

Not in the USA

Which ruled that if a man was born a slave, he was property with no rights.


The USA was wrong and eventually fought a war over the issue...which undermines the gun owning lobby's claim than ownership was a right when the 2nd amendment predated the US Civil War by about 80 years.


That said, it took further amendments to grant black people full citizen rights.
 
Not in the USA

Which ruled that if a man was born a slave, he was property with no rights.


The USA was wrong and eventually fought a war over the issue...which undermines the gun owning lobby's claim than ownership was a right when the 2nd amendment predated the US Civil War by about 80 years.


That said, it took further amendments to grant black people full citizen rights.

So.. according to you then American slavery was not a violation of African americans rights.

Okay.. got it.

Hmmm... so segregation did not violate African American rights?

Interesting. So we put you down for thumbs up for American slavery?
 
So.. according to you then American slavery was not a violation of African americans rights.

Okay.. got it.

Hmmm... so segregation did not violate African American rights?

Interesting. So we put you down for thumbs up for American slavery?


In other countries yes and also in other states. It was hardly the predominant view of CSA states though.
 
In other countries yes and also in other states. It was hardly the predominant view of CSA states though.

I see.. so again.. you do not consider slavery in the US to be a violation of African American rights.

Okay. Well.. thanks for letting us know your thoughts on the matter.
 
I see.. so again.. you do not consider slavery in the US to be a violation of African American rights...

Today we'd say a violation of human rights

But that's because slavery has been outlawed.




The CSA didn't consider it a "violation" now did they ?
 
Today we'd say a violation of human rights

But that's because slavery has been outlawed.




The CSA didn't consider it a "violation" now did they ?

Why would it be outlawed and seen as a violation of rights.. when it was legal?

According to you.. since the government did not see slavery as illegal... then slavery did not violate African americans rights.

WHY.. the heck would people try to change the law... if according to you.. these slaves didn't have any rights in the first place (since it was legal)?
 
Why would it be outlawed and seen as a violation of rights.. when it was legal?

Because more enlightened governments thought that it shouldn't be and banned the practice.


...according to you.. since the government did not see slavery as illegal... then slavery did not violate African americans rights....


How many cases did the US Supreme Court hear about slavery ?



...WHY.. the heck would people try to change the law... if according to you.. these slaves didn't have any rights in the first place (since it was legal)?


Because it was felt to be an unjust law

You know the bit about everyone being equal under the law...when clearly slaves weren't.
 
Because more enlightened governments thought that it shouldn't be and banned the practice.

.

but there wasn't a more enlightened government. The government at the time allowed slavery. It was only until PEOPLE.. who recognized that slavery was a violation of rights... CHANGED government to protect a right that they believe existed.

.
Because it was felt to be an unjust law

Bingo..so people recognized that the rights of American slaves were being violated by slavery.. DESPITE it being legal.

In other words.. rights DON"T come from governments. If they did.. then government can never violate a persons rights...
 
but there wasn't a more enlightened government....



The government in Washington which was pressing to free the slaves as more and more "non-slave" states joined the union and the balance of slave v non-slave states was lost


...the government at the time allowed slavery....

It was coming into a position where it could ban slavery, the slave states saw what was coming and declared the CSA.



...it was only until PEOPLE.. who recognized that slavery was a violation of rights... CHANGED government to protect a right that they believe existed....

No it was getting there with a majority of states being non-slave


...so people recognized that the rights of American slaves were being violated by slavery.. DESPITE it being legal....


Yes and the victorious union government passed the Emancipation of the Slaves act which gave former slaves the right to be free.

You only have the "rights" which your government allows you.



So for instance if there was a 2nd revolution in Britain and the new government repealed all gun control legislation and even passed a law sating they were entitled to own guns, the British people would have a right to bear arms.
At present they don't.



...in other words.. rights DON"T come from governments. If they did.. then government can never violate a persons rights...


Yes they can because the courts can rule a government acted unconstitutionally. It happens all the time.
 
The government in Washington which was pressing to free the slaves as more and more "non-slave" states joined the union and the balance of slave v non-slave states was lost
.

Bingo.. but the government wasn't pressing.. it was the people.. that knew that slavery was a violation of human rights.. that pressured Washington.. that voted for their states to be free..
The right didn't come from government.. it was inherent and people recognized that... despite the fact that slavery was legal. IF what you contend is true.. that its the government that grants rights...

Well.. people should have been content with the governments determination that slavery was legal. But despite it being legal.. people recognized that slavery was a violation of human rights. and acted accordingly to abolish it.

It was coming into a position where it could ban slavery, the slave states saw what was coming and declared the CSA.
Well actually no. The south realized that the advantage it had in government (from having slaves count as population.. but not vote) had ceased. Lincolns election represented that fact to them..

No it was getting there with a majority of states being non-slave

And how did states become non slave? Because people recognized that despite being legal.. slavery was a violation of rights. Government action did not come first. It was people.. people.. recognizing that a right exists.. despite the government not protecting it.. or actively violating it..

Yes and the victorious union government passed the Emancipation of the Slaves act which gave former slaves the right to be free.

You only have the "rights" which your government allows you.

Wrong.. the people recognized that slaves had a right to be free.. and thus people changed government to protect that right. They had that right.. that right was recognized.. BEFORE government... cuz otherwise.. if you didn't have a right... then why would people change government.

The point is... people have rights without government. Now.. whether they can exercise those rights.. might depend on government and who is in power etc... but.. the right still exists.

That's why people state that slavery violated the rights of africans… despite the fact that slavery was legal at the time. That's why people view the holocaust as a violation of human rights... despite it being legal for hitler to do it at the time.

That's why all around the world... people work for rights.. like woman's rights in muslim countries... DESPITE the government position.

Come on man.. you know what I say is true. IF it wasn't.. then there would be no "violation of rights"... by governments.

How could Hilters holocaust been a human rights violation.. if according to you.. rights came from the Nazi government? How could the Nazis violate the rights of JEWS.. when the government didn't give Jews rights?

So for instance if there was a 2nd revolution in Britain and the new government repealed all gun control legislation and even passed a law sating they were entitled to own guns, the British people would have a right to bear arms.
At present they don't.

Actually the people of Britain do have the right to bear arms. All people in general do... its that the British government doesn't recognize that right.

Just like muslim girls have a right to an education.. even though.. in some countries.. that right is not recognized by their government. WE know that when countries refuse to let their muslim girls get an education.. its called a human rights violation. DESPITE the fact that the government doesn't recognize it.

Rights do not come from the government. The are part of the people.. they are natural rights. And what happens is that people then work to change government to protect said rights, and prevent said rights from being violated.
 
...the government wasn't pressing.. it was the people.. that knew that slavery was a violation of human rights.. that pressured Washington.. that voted for their states to be free...

And this in the days before mass media ?
I think a citation is required here for a public demand to end slavery


...the right didn't come from government...

Yes it did


...people recognized that slavery was a violation of human rights. and acted accordingly to abolish it....


Some people did perhaps, campaigners like John Brown but mostly it was politicians

...the south realized that the advantage it had in government (from having slaves count as population.. but not vote) had ceased. Lincolns election represented that fact to them...

Basically the CSA wanted the blacks as property, non-voting, non-citizens
That was all under threat as more non-slave states joined the union and the balance was lost in Congress

The Southern states feared Congress was moving towards abolishing slavery


...and how did states become non slave?

Because lawmakers in those states made it so


.....the people recognized that slaves had a right to be free...

No they didn't


In fact in his 1860 presidential campaign, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”



The point is... people have rights without government. Now.. whether they can exercise those rights.. might depend on government and who is in power etc... but.. the right still exists....

I feel like I have to grant you something

Today organizations like Amnesty International talk about "human rights violations" with respect to countries like China
Things like being arrested without charge, being incarcerated without a trial, use of torture...etc.
Slavery, if it still existed, would count towards these but no where in human rights violation does it say ownership of a gun.

However in China I don't think you have a right to a trial

...rights do not come from the government. The are part of the people.. they are natural rights.


No rights come from government. You may feel, for instance that the British people should have a right to own a gun. The British government would disagree.

Human rights are a kind of base level of how Western countries expect other countries to behave towards its people, not how they allow their people to participate in politics.
 
So your "experience" is something other than factual - maybe "hallucinatory" ?
No, just that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." I am not so arrogant to believe my experience can be generalized to the whole population of law enforcement. It does, however, form the baseline for my default assumption that line officers are not in favor of banning anything. Should you suggest otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

You fail to understand that owning a gun gives someone the power to do just that. Perhaps your failure could be described as "spectacular" to someone with such a vivid imagination as you ?
Of course owning a gun means someone can shoot a person. Just like owning a car means a person can drive it while intoxicated. Or owning a knife means a person can stab someone with it. Owning a thing is not the same as using that thing to harm someone else.

This is a fact.

What, you mean such as a sofa ?
I mean any piece of merchandise. The assumption is that you are not going to use something you buy to murder someone. Guns are the only time this assumption is turned around, for some reason.

No it the (sadly) not uncommon use of them that is
Thank you for finally admitting that owning a gun is not evil and (by extension) not the same thing as shooting some innocent person.

Except it isn't.

And what happened the last time the government tried to ban alcohol, prohibition wasn't very successful was it ?
And you have, apparently, learned nothing from that failed endeavor.

Alcohol and nicotine are the two most dangerous drugs out there
And are you advocating their prohibition?

Also they tend to only affect the user - so if you can think of a way of making firearms only work on the user, I'm all ears (though suicides would logically reduce if guns were banned).
Families of people killed by drunk drivers might quibble with that assertion.

Also, aren't we all about second- and even third-hand smoke these days?

Excuse 2.2
Cookies.

Then excuse me and add "gift"
And now we see how the devil is in the details.

The Patriot Act does

But yes unless law enforcement cite the Patriot Act they need a warrant to search but not necessarily to arrest you
But you should be against that because it makes the job of law enforcement harder.

Yes they are

And yes to you can stoop to dredge up an anecdote of how some old woman saved her life or honer with a gun.
Except the existence of instances where guns have been successfully used in self-defense proves your "excuse" list accurate. You admit they exist and in the same breath insist it is a "debunked" excuse.

How do you keep your head straight with all this 180-degree spinning?
 
...my experience can be generalized to the whole population of law enforcement. It does, however, form the baseline for my default assumption that line officers are not in favor of banning anything. Should you suggest otherwise, the burden of proof is on you....

So your evidence that police officer aren't in favor of gun control is your personal experience

I find your argument unconvincing. You don't understand the rules of debate - the burden of proof is still on you


...of course owning a gun means someone can shoot a person. Just like owning a car means a person can drive it while intoxicated....owning a thing is not the same as using that thing to harm someone else...

No it's not

The assumption is that you are not going to use something you buy to murder someone. Guns are the only time this assumption is turned around, for some reason....

Not just murder but unintentionally maim, suicide, etc etc
It's the nature of guns. No-one doubts that you intend to drive when you buy a car.


Thank you for finally admitting that owning a gun is not evil and (by extension) not the same thing as shooting some innocent person...

You're welcome


except it isn't....

I forget, what isn't ?


And you have, apparently, learned nothing from that failed endeavor.

Not to ban alcoholic drink again


And are you advocating their prohibition?

No, see above


Families of people killed by drunk drivers might quibble with that assertion.

How so?

...aren't we all about second- and even third-hand smoke these days?

States like New York and California lead the way in reducing second hand smoke



???


And now we see how the devil is in the details.

How ?

But you should be against that because it makes the job of law enforcement harder.

I am against the Patriot Act
I'm goes against freedom.



Except the existence of instances where guns have been successfully used in self-defense proves your "excuse" list accurate. You admit they exist and in the same breath insist it is a "debunked" excuse.

How do you keep your head straight with all this 180-degree spinning?


You can study an anecdpte where a woman is confronted by men aiming to rape and murder her and by some luck she was able to get her hands on a gun and defend herself. Did you not say that the plural of anecdote is not data.

A womani is more likely to see harm to her or family members by having a firearm in the house.
 
So your evidence that police officer aren't in favor of gun control is your personal experience
As I've said literally every time I said it, and I never called it evidence.

I find your argument unconvincing. You don't understand the rules of debate - the burden of proof is still on you
You made the first claim on this topic:
I think most police officers would love it if the USA had British levels of gun ownership as they prepare to go out on patrol.
The burden is, as it always has been, on you.

No it's not
It's a shame it's taken you seventeen pages of posts to admit this. Progress is progress, I guess, however glacial its pace.

Not just murder but unintentionally maim, suicide, etc etc
It's the nature of guns. No-one doubts that you intend to drive when you buy a car.
Murder is not "the nature of guns." Hundreds of millions of guns firing billions of rounds in the US every year without causing unlawful death or injury to anyone is proof enough of that. Firearms have plenty of lawful uses and are overwhelmingly used for them. You are correct that no one doubts that a prospective car buyer will use their purchase lawfully. But you were ridiculing the notion of the exact same "honor system" we have with literally every other piece of merchandise being applied similarly to the simple act of owning a gun. It was a premise that you put forward based on my assertion that owning a gun, by itself, is not the same thing as shooting someone. Since you've now conceded that point (finally), I am unsure why you are still hammering away at this bit.

You're welcome
Except you seem to be still trying to argue a portion of that point. See above. ...and below...

I forget, what isn't ?
The relevance of how many guns it takes to shoot someone. Remember, this was still when you were trying to argue that owning a gun was the same thing as shooting someone. So why you're still pushing this nonsense, despite having conceded the point, is befuddling.

Not to ban alcoholic drink again
This is the only thing you've learned from that scheme of prohibition? You haven't thought about how that lesson might be used to gauge the efficacy and downstream effects of other attempts to prohibit easily-made and widely-held products?

No, see above
You've only addressed alcohol prohibition, not tobacco, which kills an order of magnitude more people than guns. Where are your posts demanding tobacco be banned?

Are you seriously asking how the family of a person killed by a drunk driver might take issue with your assertion that the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption only affect the person doing the drinking?

Seriously??

giphy.gif


States like New York and California lead the way in reducing second hand smoke
But this massacre has to stop, doesn't it? Ban it!

I figured I'd come back with something just as relevant and responsive as your idiotic numbered "excuses."

The little details like what counts as a transfer of ownership. Even you had to go back and change what you wanted to count as a transfer, and you only wrote one sentence.

I am against the Patriot Act
I'm goes against freedom.
You mean it goes against freedoms you like. You're all about curbing freedoms you don't like.

You can study an anecdpte where a woman is confronted by men aiming to rape and murder her and by some luck she was able to get her hands on a gun and defend herself. Did you not say that the plural of anecdote is not data.
I did, and it isn't. However, the existence of even a single data point that contradicts a hypothesis can be enough to discredit that hypothesis. The existence of one person who is alive because they were able to use a gun for self-defense disproves the idea that guns as a self-defense tool is "debunked."

A womani is more likely to see harm to her or family members by having a firearm in the house.
That depends on who has the gun.
 
As I've said literally every time I said it, and I never called it evidence.

Cal it justification if you want to.


You made the first claim on this topic

I don't think I made a claim but rather than an assumption that most police officers would support gun control but that doesn't seem to be the case. Presumably because they're gun owners too.


Arkansas authorities: Slain cop shot 10 times in head | Daily Mail Online


I bet the family of this cop, randomly killed are in favor of gun control


It's a shame it's taken you seventeen pages of posts to admit this. Progress is progress, I guess, however glacial its pace.

Admit what ?



Murder is not "the nature of guns." Hundreds of millions of guns firing billions of rounds in the US every year without causing unlawful death or injury to anyone is proof enough of that....

No it's not
10,000 homicides and 70,000+ injuries + 20,000 suicides are "proof" that guns are a danger to society.
If Charles Manson spent the greater part of his life doing good deeds for old ladies, would that make him less of a monster

Why is it important how many guns are not used to kill ?


Except you seem to be still trying to argue a portion of that point...

What point ?


...remember, this was still when you were trying to argue that owning a gun was the same thing as shooting someone....


No, I didn't argue that at all

Post# ?


So why you're still pushing this nonsense...


Because banning guns would save life and maiming



This is the only thing you've learned from that scheme of prohibition?


Not to ban alcohol? Yes


You haven't thought about how that lesson might be used to gauge the efficacy and downstream effects of other attempts to prohibit easily-made and widely-held products?


Moonshine and bootleg beer is easily made. Guns are not.

By that arguing, we should legalize cocaine and heroin.


You've only addressed alcohol prohibition, not tobacco, which kills an order of magnitude more people than guns. Where are your posts demanding tobacco be banned?

It should be but it won't.

Though vaping might be and some states like California severely restrict where you can smoke


Are you seriously asking how the family of a person killed by a drunk driver might take issue with your assertion that the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption only affect the person doing the drinking?

And so can marijuana - which the MLB recently said they will no longer test for


Why have driver hours been controlled - didn't that mean that truck drivers who never killed anyone had their hours restricted ?


But this massacre has to stop, doesn't it? Ban it!


I think your post is disingenuous but OK, sure. Certainly from public places and increase taxes on tobacco to cover the inevitable medical costs to the non-smoking tax payer
Sadly the banning of guns from public places doesn't seem to work


I figured I'd come back with something just as relevant and responsive as your idiotic numbered "excuses."

You didn't - just pulling numbers out of thin air. A common gun owning tactic


The little details like what counts as a transfer of ownership. Even you had to go back and change what you wanted to count as a transfer, and you only wrote one sentence.

How many sentences and on what little details do you need ?


You mean it goes against freedoms you like. You're all about curbing freedoms you don't like.

Yes, though I suspect the freedoms curtailed by the "Patriot Act" are liked by most if not all people in the USA.


I did, and it isn't. However, the existence of even a single data point that contradicts a hypothesis can be enough to discredit that hypothesis....

No it's not

The plural of anecdote is not data.

If one person used a gun to save their life, it doesn't outweigh the hundreds of thousands who are victims


You say your guns have never hurt anyone and never will and it's unfair to confiscate them
The answer is OK and yes it is...followed by a big SO WHAT ?


That depends on who has the gun.

Someone in the house - typically a child.
 
Back
Top Bottom