A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

[TurtleDude]

Nowhere did I say it was the right of a militia. I said the constitution says a well regulated militia in reference to the right to keep and bear arms.



And? Argument from Authority Fallacy.



Silly position? I haven't staked a position. I simply asked a question.

I'll converse with those who would discuss this without being condescending, thanks.

so edify us as to what your point is concerning the militia when it has nothing to do with the right

 

[Obscurity]

so edify us as to what your point is concerning the militia when it has nothing to do with the right

It's in the amendment, so I am asking what the rational is behind it being included; however, I'll await Vance's reply, since you're seemingly incapable of answering these sorts of questions without overt hostility.

 

[TurtleDude]

Argument from Authority Fallacy #2.

Like I said, I'll converse with you, when you choose to be civil. Normally VanceMack and I disagree and vehemently so; in this case, he is a better person to discuss this with as he is laying out his opinion in a balanced way and not appealing to authority to do so.

when discussing constitutional rights, the authority of the supreme court, is somewhat important

 

[Obscurity]

when discussing constitutional rights, the authority of the supreme court, is somewhat important

That doesn't make it any less of an argument from authority fallacy, nor did I ask about the court's previous ruling. I am asking about the originalist INTENT with the amendment AS written; and as written, it makes reference to the Militia.

 

[VanceMack]

Could it be that Washington's designs here were based on the fact our country was involved in a land war against a tyrannical government thousands of miles away?

In an originalist sense, it makes sense that you treat the public as a militia, but the terminology of "well regulated" to me doesn't mean you keep your gun clean. It means you're trained (which is something conservatives fight against, required gun training, as you espouse here) in the use and safety of the gun itself.

Well...considering his comments were made during his inauguration well AFTER the war was over and considering he was never a fan of militias and he personally favored a standing military...I would say...no.

Well regulated in the vernacular used in the 1700s meant kept in good working order. It was a term used for clocks.

 

[Obscurity]

Well...considering his comments were made during his inauguration well AFTER the war was over and considering he was never a fan of militias and he personally favored a standing military...I would say...no.

Well regulated in the vernacular used in the 1700s meant kept in good working order. It was a term used for clocks.

I forgot the commentary was made during his inauguration; thank you for pointing that out.

Also, appreciate the insight; I was not aware well regulated was a specific vernacular with particular use; I've confirmed with a few sites you are correct.

Thank you for answering.

 

[TurtleDude]

That doesn't make it any less of an argument from authority fallacy, nor did I ask about the court's previous ruling. I am asking about the originalist INTENT with the amendment AS written; and as written, it makes reference to the Militia.

and you have been taught that the founders believed it was an individual right they were guaranteeing and so militia membership is irrelevant

 

[Obscurity]

and you have been taught that the founders believed it was an individual right they were guaranteeing and so militia membership is irrelevant

And I didnt need you to tell me anything to arrive at this point.

Being rude and condescending doesnt help you man.

 

[lwf]

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No civilian needs an assault rifle.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

America is in no danger of being taken over by a tyrannical government.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

They could potentially be with the way the media fans the flames of fear of mass shootings, but he is correct in pointing out that they aren't by definition a slippery slope to confiscation.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

All rights can be modified.

In general, I concede all of his points as generally true. None of them provide any reason to outlaw any particular type of firearm, however. Plenty of completely unnecessary, dangerous things prone to misuse that kill innocent people are legal.

 

[TurtleDude]

And I didnt need you to tell me anything to arrive at this point.

Being rude and condescending doesnt help you man.

Poor arguments that ignore reality will be criticized.

 

[Obscurity]

Poor arguments that ignore reality will be criticized.

And people who reapond with arrogance, intolerance and downright petty rudeness will be shamed and ignored.

 

[TurtleDude]

And people who reapond with arrogance, intolerance and downright petty rudeness will be shamed and ignored.

do your best, silly arguments that are repeated over and over don't get much respect, and rightfully so. Especially when it appears the author is trying to be contrarian

 

[Obscurity]

do your best, silly arguments that are repeated over and over don't get much respect, and rightfully so. Especially when it appears the author is trying to be contrarian

I asked a legitimate question. You chose to act .... Unacceptably.

Fare well.

 

[vegas giants]

And people who reapond with arrogance, intolerance and downright petty rudeness will be shamed and ignored.

As they should

 

[TurtleDude]

I asked a legitimate question. You chose to act .... Unacceptably.

Fare well.

what question was that?

 

[Lursa]

It looks like OscarLevant has left the building.

I find that comment exceedingly ironic since you frequently start OPs and then abandon them.

He posted yesterday evening...maybe he works during the day.

 

[DebateChallenge]

OscarLevant has still left the building.

 

[CLAX1911]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

1) guns can be used for home defense it is not more likely that you were going to shoot a family member thinking they are an intruder. How many times has that happened? Such a thing would be reported to the police and we would have FBI statistics I'm willing to bet it's not common at all.

2) that's kind of derogatory toward our soldiers do people think they would really just slay our citizens?

3) vehicle is a different things that a firearm. You operate a vehicle in a public place around other people operating their vehicles. You're not allowed to just fire guns off in the air you have to go to a gun range or a place where you know you're not going to shoot anybody to use them.

If everybody went out in the streets and fired their guns off in order to get to work every morning then I can see the comparison.

4) sure the amendment can be changed. People have to vote in the Congress to do it in the state legislators. Write up a bill and ratify it.

Further down the line calling things common Sense doesn't make them common sense. A speed bump for gunfire doesn't seem to be common sense.

 

[VySky]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

A- Your friend is misinformed or blatantly dishonest. M4's (AR-15 style) firearm is an excellent choice for close-quarter engagements.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

A- Assumptions are like... well you know. Assuming the military will not suffer mass defection if orders are given to go door to door confiscating firearms is ridiculous. We saw a prelude post Boston Marathon bombing the process. Going to be a long day on some streets

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

A- Registration leads to confiscation. To disarm the public, the powers to be need to know first where, and who has the gun

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

A- Gun owners have compromised to date. However, the onion only has so many layers that can be peeled. It's the end of the road in that regard

Questions answered above within the OP

Summary- Your friend is arguing from a position of ignorance

-VySky

 

[braindrain]

He was OK until #3 and by extension #4.

The 2A does not define a state issued privilege (like driving a car) it greatly limits the government from removing the (pre-existing) right of the people to own and carry guns suitable for militia (military) use. Therefore, any comparisons to a mere state issued privilege are BS.

Simply because the 2A, like many rights, are not unlimited does not mean that any and all limits are OK. If that was the case then the entire BoR is simply window dressing and the federal government can pass any laws that it desires. To refer to things like the AWB or magazine capacity limits as a "speed bumps" is just plain dishonesty - it's a ban on guns (or integral parts of them) currently in common use for lawful purposes.

Actually he didn't even do OK on one and two. Short barreled shotguns are not better home defense weapons then ARs so right off the bat he proved he doesn't know what he is talking about and his second point is absolute garbage as well. The US civilian population has way more will trained former service members them Afghanistan has and the afghans for the most part are a joke when it comes to fighting them. And besides know one in their right mind thinks that the US military would lose against US civilians it's that an armed population makes the government much more aware of the cost of they tried to go against the people.

In the end the author of that crap is simply clueless and I have some pretty real doubts as to his supposed background.

 

[braindrain]

I agree generally but go with a handgun for home defense

Great idea. Pick a weapon that is much harder to use accurately under stress and low light, as well as one that fires ammo that comparatively is much much worse at stopping a threat compared to a rifle.

 

[vegas giants]

Great idea. Pick a weapon that is much harder to use accurately under stress and low light, as well as one that fires ammo that comparatively is much much worse at stopping a threat compared to a rifle.

Man....someone should tell cops about this!


Now that was hilarious

 

[braindrain]

Man....someone should tell cops about this!


Now that was hilarious

Wait You don't think cops already know this. Man you really are uneducated in this topic here let me help you out.
So tell me since you are so smart then how come when cops actually know ahead of time they are likely to get into a shooting they bring their rifles and not just their pistols. Why do you think police SWAT teams so raids with ARs instead of just their pistols.

The thing that is actually hilarious is seeing just how badly you failed. But nice try though.

 

[vegas giants]

Wait You don't think cops already know this. Man you really are uneducated in this topic here let me help you out.
So tell me since you are so smart then how come when cops actually know ahead of time they are likely to get into a shooting they bring their rifles and not just their pistols. Why do you think police SWAT teams so raids with ARs instead of just their pistols.

The thing that is actually hilarious is seeing just how badly you failed. But nice try though.

Dude I was a cop and we went into all kinds of dangerous situations in low light alone with just our handguns. We had shotguns and rifles in the car. You have no clue what you are talking about

 

[braindrain]

Dude I was a cop and we went into all kinds of dangerous situations in low light alone with just our handguns. We had shotguns and rifles in the car. You have no clue what you are talking about

And why did you bother having rifles and shotguns if your pistol was the best option. Why don't swat simply carry pistols.
Its pretty obvious one of us doesn't have a clue and it's not me.

And notice I never said that police don't go into dangerous situations without a rifle but when they know ahead of time and have the option they carry their rifles. Pretending otherwise is simply pathetically dishonest.