'The' Gun Thread (Page 32)

So then Pitt, serious question. Do you not understand and care about the underlying principle of RTBA?

If you wish to have an honest discussion about the problem, and various solutions to it, can you not understand the importance of honoring the RTBA?

What seems to happen is that those for gun control don't personally care about guns and see no reason why anyone else would either. So then it is easy to just slap a law across the problem to limit guns... but that does not honor the principle behind the Bill Of Rights, and what inalienable rights are.

You throw out nice disclaimers like... sure, I have no problem with you checking out your bolt action rifle from the police to go shoot a deer once a year... So I am OK with gun ownership.... but that is not what the RTBA is.

If you would sit down and say that the 2A is, and we are not going to trample anyones rights, but what can we do about violence and crime in this country... well then we can have an honest dicussion and perhaps work on some things both sides can accept... but that is not what is happening, and all that is happening is both sides get more entrenched.

The only hitch in all this is the 2A and SCOTUS. Either repeal it, or honor it. But saying you are honoring it, while finding more ways to restrict it does not solve problems.

How is that hyperbole?

You are exactly right.  Here's a news flash......it is NOT the NRA's mission or responsibility to reduce gun violence.  That falls squarely on Law Enforcement and the Justice system.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I sure as hell don't expect them to deal with gun violence. Here's another item to consider.....their membership is not committing gun crimes either....so why on earth WOULD they give a rat's arse?

Nice Sig line. "It's harder to be a liberal than a conservative, because it's easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand."

They are a lobbying group like any other. I never really cared about them, and find some "gun" folks nuts. Guess what, I joined... just because the opposition is soooo ridiculous with what they are trying to do.

I don't always agree with the results of the work of the ACLU... fighting to get every kind of deviant out of trouble... but I am darn sure glad that they fight for our rights. I actually have a much higher opinion of them now knowing how fragile our rights are. And yes, the ACLU has some problems with gun control too.

So don't complian so loudly about the NRA and their agenda.... when elected officials are out right lying and misleading the public to pass legislation to trample on the 2A from their own bizzaro world agenda of a gun free world.

It never has been, and never will be about the object.... it is about power. If you doubt that, you have not been paying attention.

To the contrary, it is inextricably intertwined with the issue we are discussing.  We are discussing a Constitutional Right, this fact seems to get lost in the rhetoric of those that espouse gun control legislation.  Neither in the debates I have seen in congress, nor on TV is this fact given the prominence it deserves.  Not just deserves, but this fact should be at the forefront of the discussion.  What is discussed instead is notions of "need", or now that a "majority of people polled agree with 'x'" with a very conspicuous absence of the notion that we are talking about a Constitutional Right here, and it is therefore upon the government to justify their curtailment of that right.  There is absolutely no requirement that firearm owner's justify their possession of firearms.  There is no needs test, there is no reasonableness test for the individual.  Any test is for the government to pass.

The notion that you believe that comparing one enumerated/God-given/natural right to another is hyperbole I believe demonstrates one of the glaring issues that has been either negligently or purposefully removed from the debate. These rights are intertwined if for no other reason then their passage at the same time in the bill of rights, and their seeming import to the framers with a specific instruction on both that the government was not to violate these rights.  I.E., the language of both the 1st and 2nd amendments seems to indicate that the rights contained in both amendments were sacrosanct.   The first amendment reads in part "Congress shall make no law...." and the second amendment reads in part: "...shall not be infringed." 

Then I propose an alternative question, that perhaps  you will not view as hyperbole: Should the rights enumerated in the second amendment be given the same protections as the other rights contained in the bill of rights? 

OK, true the NRA is a lobbying group for gun industry...but does that make the bolded part any less true?

Well... even on this thread I've heard the slippery slope argument used over and over. That new laws will lead to this, which will lead to this, etc. So actually, now that I think more about it, no, the bolded part isn't necessarily true for everyone. I think that many are against further regulation because they fear what it will lead to.

Actually, YOU should be afraid of that too. 

This isn't being done to curb gun violence........because not a single proposal will play any role in that.

Again...this is cart before the horse.  It's not up to the citizens to defend why they are against this regulation, because this regulation impacts an enumerated Constitutional Right.  Thus, it is up to the government to demonstrate a legitimate compelling interest for why such legislatively created infringement is warranted.  The compelling state interest that has continually been espoused is one of safety and a reduction in gun violence.  The relationship between the proposed legislation and its actual effect on leading to the espoused goal of a reduction in gun violence is dubious at best.

Now regarding the "slippery slope" argument or the "black helicopter"  crew as another poster referred to it.  In this matter I will side with Madison and the founders who had such fear of the corruption of man and the impact of corruption on an otherwise legitimate form of government that they required the passage of the Bill of Rights.

As to a more definite and specific demonstration of the reality of the "slippery slope" argument, one need only read the Heller decision to see the gun legislation at issue there to see that in fact legislation has been passed that in effect has taken guns away from individuals.  This is the SUpreme Courts view of the legislation at issue in Heller, not mine.

You call it "slippery slope" I call it reality.  I base my view of reality on the facts of the Heller case, and indeed the passage of the Bill of RIghts itself.

And how many times have you heard the "slippery slope" argument for abortion rights?

How many times have you heard the "slippery slope" argument made for property rights, or search and siezure, or speech we find abhorant?

Answer: every one of them, and they were usually upheld with those..... you tell me one good reason who needs or why partial birth abortions are still legal?

And I am not against abortion at all... but I do see the need to not use them at 30 months as delayed birth control. Yet it is protected  for "privacy" tied to Constitutional rights.... and that whole slippery slope thing... because, then you know, women/doctors will just do it illegaly, because you know... you can't actually make people not do bad things.

The slippery slope argument is logically fallacious, regardless of the context under which it is used.

That's cool... it's a nice expession... but it's not needed. I already have, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It's you job to prove why you feel restriction is needed. It is not mine to prove why it is not.

Exactly!  The left is failing miserably with the attack on the "NRA" because there are millions of people saying, "hey, they are talking about me."  Even my kids are members.  We area also members of GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation and even NAGR.

I just want to admit that my childish mind immediately thought about Lucky Charms being "magically delicious" as soon as I read "logically fallacious." 

You're flat out wrong.  IN legal terms it's not "slippery slope"; it's called legal precedence.   One legal precedence is used in future cases, cases that may be both factually and legally dissimilar to the original case, however the legal precedence is used to argue in favor of a change in the law.  One need only look at the notion of privacy rights to see precedence in action. 

What is one persons legal precedence is another person's slippery slope. 

No childish would have been to giggle at the word fallacious.

Update: in the last 24 hours, it's become clear that not everyone has read and / or embraced the advice we've offered, which I've re-quoted below.

So....we've decided to freeze the thread for a week, with the hope that all concerned will take the opportunity to read the advice and hopefully join back in the debate in a way that respects the other site members. BT values spirited debate, but with the measure of respect that each member deserves.   

Please offer the courtesy of not starting other 2A/Gun control threads in the meantime. Thankyou. 

FINALLY!  Got my guns back!

Cuz I'm the roughest, toughest, rootinest, shootinest claim-jumper that ever jumped a claim, and I'm-a takin' over *your* claim! So get-a goin' a-fore I puncture your hide!