Circular f*cking arguments - "I consider all gun control laws....

[Pert_UK]

to be unconstitutional".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=46712&mesg_id=46973&page=

Now here's the problem (my fine friends).....

Is something immoral/wrong simply because it goes against the constitution?

Consider that the constitution was written by a set of fallible people in specific circumstances a while ago in history.

It has been interpreted and misinterpreted ever since.

Now, I'm not making any claims about how it SHOULD be read as I don't have enough knowledge on the subject. However, somebody who basically states that anything controlling access to guns is "unconstitutional" and who tacitly implies/concludes that it is therefore correct to disobey CURRENT laws without regard to the practical consequences, is in need of some serious help.

I mean FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY.........all the pro-RKBA/gun people who I have discussed things with on here acknowledge that guns shouldn't be just available to ANYONE, regardless of suitability. You're not allowed to drive if you're blind or 8 years old, so why does it make sense to assert that guns should not be subject to any control whatsover?

It seems to me that SOMEONE has been interpreting the constitution (and amendments) in their own special way and then decided that anyone who breaks laws to pursue that view is in the right....

It is a CIRCULAR and POINTLESS argument to state "Bearing arms is a right because it says so in the constitution".....the argument doesn't lie here, it lies in whether IF one interprets the constitution that way whether it makes sense, and what LAWS can be introduced to protect the right of self-defense whilst denying unsuitable people the access to lethal weapons.

On edit - sorry guys, I've just got back from a funeral and have been drinking so I'm not on top form......although I'm still making more sense than at least one person on here.

[demsrule4life]

1. Sorry about your loss

and one thing I learned a long time ago is that alcohol and keyboards don't mix. That has caused me to lose some friendships.

[Pert_UK]

3. Thanks.

I take your point and will try to restrain myself.......pretty good spelling so far, so I'll stick with it!

P.

[stepnw1f]

2. The Gun and it's Consequences

are far more important than the right to bear arms. I'm sick of hearing people whine about losing the right to own a gun. I grew up in a rough neighborhood and can tell you that I never felt the need to own a gun. Wanna argue about break-ins, robberies, gang fights... go ahead. I never had a gun and never needed one. To me the arguement to own a gun is an empty one. It's a damn sport. Well go ahead and have fun with your toy, but don't play with my life or any of my love one's lives.

[DoNotRefill]

6. So, if you never felt a need to vote....

people shouldn't be upset about being disenfranchised?

[stepnw1f]

9. heh?

[DoNotRefill]

11. you said:

"I'm sick of hearing people whine about losing the right to own a gun. I grew up in a rough neighborhood and can tell you that I never felt the need to own a gun."

while pushing a gun control argument. How is that different from saying "I'm sick of hearing people whine about losing their right to vote. I grew up in a politically corrupt neighborhood and can tell you that I never felt the need to vote."

You don't need a reason to exercise a right.

[stepnw1f]

12. Wow...Veryyyy different

Stretch on semantics.

[DoNotRefill]

16. Why?

They're both civil rights.

[mp40]

14. Good for You

You don't own a "gun", good for you. Don't need one? Better yet. The 2ND is a basic Right, just like the first, third, etc... If you do not want to own a firearm, Great, but keep your hands off of mine. It is a right I exercise everyday, and will continue until the day I die. Why can't most of the left wing anti's get that through there heads? Empty Argument? Hardly!!!!

[Cooper]

22. tell that to victims of fascism.

isn't something like 100 million people killed in the 20th century by fascism? wonder how many of those ubergovernments enacted weapons control before they started loading up the boxcars.

guns are not a problem. more people are killed by bad doctors. more kids drown in their swimming pools that shoot themselves with daddy's gun like in those commercials you've watched a million times. though i always advocate safety and responsibility with guns, there are greater threats.

on the other hand, an armed population WILL prevent tyranny. that is why the second amendment exists.

it is not "just a sport."

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, cooper, every humhole with a swastika today is peddling gun rights

as loud as they can....

[Cooper]

24. not the ones in power . . .

would you say george bush has some fascist tendancies? he's pretty anti-gun, by my standards. how about the patriot act? that fine piece of fascism was supported by some notable anti-gunners who wouldn't be caught dead with a swastika (Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, et all).

Hitler and Stalin are dictators who enacted gun control and later killed millions. other totalitarian governments that love gun-grabbing were Turkey, Cambodia, and China. to name a few.

there is a difference between fascists and racists. the swastika today indicates "white pride," which is more a racial idea. many hate groups have a more libertarian standing, as long as you're talking about a "white society." but they most definitely do not want to arm the people they hate.

ever read the "Turner Diaries"? it's sort of an underground book by a neo-nazi named william pierce. there is a great amount of it devoted to touting gun rights . . . but it never advocates gun rights for blacks/jews.

so yes, i'll agree there are a lot of fringe groups that advocate gun rights and sport fascist symbols. but i think true fascists . . . particularly those in our government . . . do NOT want an armed proletariat.

[MrBenchley]

25. Too TOO funny!

"would you say george bush has some fascist tendancies? he's pretty anti-gun, by my standards."
Remind me not to care what your standards are if chimpy seems anti-gun to you.

"how about the patriot act? that fine piece of fascism was supported by some notable anti-gunners"
And by even more pro-gunners....and by the by, want to tell us what it says about guns in the Patriot Act?

[Cooper]

26. "Chimpy"

nice one. :)

ok . . . while, GWB is not the zenith of the anti-gun crowd, he supports the Assault Weapons Ban and "sensible" gun laws. basically, he doesn't have the balls to stand up for gun rights, even though he claims to take a "conservative" position on the issue. he'd much rather spend his time executing the developmentally disabled, persecuting gays and trying to overturn roe v. wade.

the Patriot Act doesn't say anything about guns. but it's a nice open door to fascism, wouldn't you agree? you're right, most senators (whether pro or anti gun) voted for it. its not hard, therefore, to link fascism with the-powers-that-be.

[MrBenchley]

29. Too TOO funny...

"he supports the Assault Weapons Ban and "sensible" gun laws"
Yeah, and though he pays them lip service he dopesn't actually DO anything....but then he knows that most Americans support those laws.

"the Patriot Act doesn't say anything about guns. but it's a nice open door to fascism, wouldn't you agree"
Yeah, and the NRA and GOA's only complaint is that it doesn't go far enough down that road.

[Cooper]

35. i must have missed

the debate class where they taught "too TOO funny" is the ultimate rebuttal.

you're arguing fine points here, when my original statement was that there are people in power who want CONTROL. be it people control or gun control. one of those people is "chimpy." others are members of the left.

the larger point being that fascists (or "those who want control") LOVE gun control.

now, to argue the fine points . . .

Bush does more than pay them lip service, as indicated by his zeal in the gay marriage thing. if he really wanted the AWB to die, he would say so. if he was really a pro-gunner, he would speak out like he does against gay marriage and abortion. Bush knows that if he does much to actively support the AWB, he will lose a LOT of republican votes. he's riding the line, trying to get the most votes from both sides. he remains a spineless, stupid man.

<<Yeah, and the NRA and GOA's only complaint is that it doesn't go far enough down that road.>>

i think you're having fantasies here. gun owners are pretty concerned about the patriot act.

or did you have facts to back that up?

[MrBenchley]

36. Sorry, but I find stale gun nut arguments risible

"the larger point being that fascists (or "those who want control") LOVE gun control."
Again, every asswipe wearing a swastika these days is touting this idiotic gun rights rubbish, no matter how you want to dance around it.

"Bush does more than pay them lip service, as indicated by his zeal in the gay marriage thing."
Gee, Chimpy''s called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and pushed it in public appearances. He hasn't done dick about the AWB since he lied about supporting it while campaigning, when he also claimed he'd reduce CO2 emissions. Seen him doing much of that?
And it's no ocincidence that almost ALL of the same Republican humholes pushing gun rights are also pushing that gay marriage ban.

"did you have facts to back that up?"
Of course...

"WASHINGTON - Gun owners may have no better ally in Washington than Attorney General John Ashcroft, once featured in a National Rifle Association magazine cover story as "a breath of fresh air" in the capital.
Now that Ashcroft's Justice Department has taken over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, gun control supporters are concerned he could begin chipping away at enforcement rules.
They say the switch gives Ashcroft the opportunity to weaken oversight and regulation in such areas as federal licensing for gun sellers, how banned assault weapons are defined and whether to expand a ballistics matching system that traces guns used in crimes."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/5061101.htm

[Pert_UK]

37. There's nothing risible about stale nuts....

:-)

P.

[MrBenchley]

38. There is when they're being offered as rare delicacies

RKBAers are always announcing yet another rare delight, but it always turns out to be the same old stale nuts.

[Cooper]

39. speaking of circular logic

<<Again, every asswipe wearing a swastika these days is touting this idiotic gun rights rubbish, no matter how you want to dance around it.>>

i think i did a pretty good job of "dancing around it." why don't you read up on hate groups in america and see just how closely their gun-rights ideology follows that of the NRA? ever see a Klansman carrying a sign that says "Arm African Americans?" nope.

how about Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership? are they white supremacists too?

why would fascists want to arm individuals?

and . . . why don't you respond to these points instead of falling back on "well, well . . he's got a SWASTIKA!!!!" as if that makes him a fascist, or makes all pro-gunners fascist/racist.

<<Chimpy>>

hell, i'll concede.

we can argue all day about whether Bush is pro- or anti-gun. since we both hate him, we'll both feel the other way. he's too anti for my tastes and too pro for yours. either way, it does not affect the larger point. unless you're trying to insinuate i'm just talking out of my ass and have no argument worth listening to.

<<Ashcroft>>

that article doesn't even mention the Patriot Act. do lots of gun owners like Ashcroft . . . yes. do they also like the Patriot Act . . probably not! wasn't your original implication was that the NRA and the GOA were totally behind the Patriot Act?



to sum this all up and argue the main points: do you actually thing that true fascists (who want a government that controls its subjects lives down to the last detail) want individuals to be armed? if so, why do so many fascist governments disarm their citizens?

[MrBenchley]

40. Dancing around it

and you still dodge the point, which is that every numbnutz wearing a swastika is peddling this bogus gun rights crap.

"why don't you read up on hate groups in america and see just how closely their gun-rights ideology follows that of the NRA? "
Been there, done that, coop. It fits to a "T"...not surprising because several people with ties to white supremacy groups are on the board of the NRA.

"ever see a Klansman carrying a sign that says "Arm African Americans?""
Actually, the rancid nutcases are even willing to forego their knee-jerk racism to peddle that gun rights crap...Here’s the Texas KKK:

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

"how about Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership? are they white supremacists too?"
I'm always amazed when the RKBA crowd drags out JPFO like their fucking existence is meaningful in and of itself: "That there is a Jew, Clem. He must be one of them libruls."
JPFO advertises a lot of neoConfederate crap and sticks up for the Stars and Bars--that racist enough for you?

"do you actually thing that true fascists (who want a government that controls its subjects lives down to the last detail) want individuals to be armed?"
Sure they do....it's how they expect to achieve that wretched objective.

[Cooper]

41. waltz

we have the same argument going on two threads. maybe we should start our own or something.

ok, sure. every numbnutz wearing a swastika is peddling that gun rights crap. you got me.

since the link you posted is dead, i can't really read the rest of their platform, but i'd be willing to bet that the Texas KKK is not a fascist organization, but a racist one. for the millionth time, there is a big difference. they do not want a large central government telling them what to do.

the rhetoric of the klan is often self-contradictory anyway. when they say "all law-abiding americans," they most likely mean whites only. as in "all law-abiding americans should have equal opportunity for employment." to those assholes, non-whites are neither law-abiding nor americans.

it does not make sense that they'd want black families armed when they came to burn crosses on their yards.

<<is that racist enough for you?>>

well, no. and racism isn't the point.

<<it's how they expect to achieve that wretched objective. >>

how will arming the people help the government gain control over them. "here's your rifle, now get in that boxcar, you filthy jew!"

not logical . . .

[MrBenchley]

42. Double-time...it's still a dance around the issue.

"i'd be willing to bet that the Texas KKK is not a fascist organization, but a racist one"
No shit, sherlock. YOU were the one who brought up "hate groups" because you wanted to pretend they weren't peddling this idiotic "gun rights" crap.

"when they say "all law-abiding americans," they most likely mean whites only"
Yeah, but you'll notice they didn't even bother to make that edit before regurgitating this crap.

"not logical"
Spare us from RKBA "logic" or whatever it is....

[Cooper]

43. sigh

<<No shit, sherlock. YOU were the one who brought up "hate groups" because you wanted to pretend they weren't peddling this idiotic "gun rights" crap.>>

nope, i brought up government fascists that want total control over the people. YOU equated that with "swastika-wearing humholes."

<<Yeah, but you'll notice they didn't even bother to make that edit before regurgitating this crap.>>

that's weak.

<<Spare us from RKBA "logic" or whatever it is....>>

so is this. how does RKBA logic differ here? can you explain to me why a bunch of Klansmen would want to arm the people they persecute?

i really don't see much point in arguing this with you anymore. you clearly don't want to talk about the main issue, which is that fascism benefits from gun control. you have ignored my points and refused to respond to critical things like fascist regimes in history that have used gun control. you present no logical reasons why fascists would want to arm the people. instead, you keep going back to the swastika thing and harping on smaller points to confuse the issue.

[MrBenchley]

44. Sigh all you want, coop....

"can you explain to me why a bunch of Klansmen would want to arm the people they persecute?"
Geeze, coop, last time I looked, the KKK wasn't persecuting much of anybody anymore (even if cross-burning Charlie Pickering and the GOP are trying to bring them back). Open racism is no longer tolerated, except on places like gun owners' online forums and among the sort of scum who inhabit the free republic.

And one would have to be a total idiot not to see what a great recruiting tool the spectre of "negroes with guns" (that phrase the RKBA crowd seems to get a thrill from) is to ignorant yokels odf the sort the KKK encounter at gun shows and similar kaffeklatches.

"you have ignored my points"
And they've been well worth ignoring in EVERY way.

[Cooper]

45. last one for me

this is going nowhere.

some final points:

<<Geeze, coop, last time I looked, the KKK wasn't persecuting much of anybody anymore (even if cross-burning Charlie Pickering and the GOP are trying to bring them back). Open racism is no longer tolerated, except on places like gun owners' online forums and among the sort of scum who inhabit the free republic.>>

so the Klan decided that, since the lynching days are over, they just might as well advocate gun rights for african americans? or were you just trying to insult RKBAers?

<<And one would have to be a total idiot not to see what a great recruiting tool the spectre of "negroes with guns" (that phrase the RKBA crowd seems to get a thrill from) is to ignorant yokels odf the sort the KKK encounter at gun shows and similar kaffeklatches.>>

so let me get this straight . . . the KKK pushes gun rights so that black people will arm themselves and then the klan can recruit more members because people will be afraid of armed black people? kind of subtle for a bunch of rednecks, isn't it? this must be part of that vast right-wing conspiracy i keep hearing about.

i'm done. have fun keeping the flame.

[MrBenchley]

46. It's going right where it belongs, coop...

It just doesn't follow the RKBA horseshit you're used to seeing at cesspools like guncite.

"kind of subtle for a bunch of rednecks, isn't it?"
Gee, that strikes you as subtle?

[MrBenchley]

4. It's especially a pantload

because not many Americans consider that particular person the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional....and in the case of the laws he peevishly wants to declare so, not even the raving nutcases at NRA or GOA are dopey enough to try to challenge them in court on constitutional grounds.

Next, if you want, we can discuss "civil disobedience" and what a pantload his stance on that is, too....

Sorry to hear about the funeral...

[iverglas]

5. the bible told me so

When a case is argued in a court, there is authority that must be considered and that may be appealed to: the law, and above it the constitution. The law may be challenged on the basis of the constitution. The constitution may not be challenged.

The constitution is the authority by which concrete disputes are resolved. It is the authority because the society governed by it has agreed to be governed by it, and for no other reason. The society could of course decide, at any moment, to rip it up and write a whole new one, or do anything else with it that it wanted.

In a discussion of public policy which is purely theoretical -- such as we have here -- authority may be appealed to when the issue is what the outcome of the dispute IS, but *not* when the issue is what the outcome of that dispute SHOULD BE. I agree with you, of course: surely that is obvious.

Resolving an argument about how a case or issue would have to be resolved given a particular premise, in this case what is said in the US Constitution, is one thing. Purporting to resolve an argument about how a case or issue should be resolved if one were starting in a vacuum is a completely different thing.

Of course, anyone is entitled to refuse to engage in discussion of the latter kind. Or to say that the case or issue should be resolved exactly as it is resolved under the existing authority.

But one cannot appeal to the authority itself as the basis for saying that!! That authority is not authority for any statement of how things should be done, because THERE IS NO authority for such things. They are matters of opinion.

The fact that a bunch of old dead white guys in a particular part of North America in a particular decade of the 18th century (or old dead middle eastern guys a couple of millennia ago, or anybody else) shared someone's opinion, or that 100,000,000 people still share that opinion, simply does not make the opinion "better" than any other opinion.

Anyhow, the bit you've left out is the bit that entertains me most. When pressed to go behind their authority and demonstrate why it is how things should be done, those who cite it (in their preferred interpretation of it) are often wont to come back with "natural rights!!" Now, find me that authority for them that I have to accept ...

There ain't no authority for what is right & wrong. There are many aspects of that issue that many people agree on, and that agreement provides some basis for debating how things should be done. But the agreement itself is the only authority that any party to the discussion can ever appeal to.

The political compass quiz was somewhat useful for that. I could say to someone who disagrees with me on firearms control: but your score indicates that you agree with interfering with individual freedoms in the collective interest (the left-right axis); why is this "freedom" different from others that you agree to limit? (As you asked in your post.) Conversely, I could be asked: your score indicates that you disagree with interfering with individual freedoms in matters in which society has no interest (the libertarian-authoritarian axis); why is this "freedom" different from others that you don't agree to limit? (Okay, my framing of the questions may sound biased, but hey, that's how *I* frame them.)

I would say: there is a collective interest at stake that I consider paramount. My adversary would say: whatever collective is at stake does not take precedence over the individual interest.

(And interestingly, despite all the shouting about "freedom", the individual interest at stake is actually security, whenever it is made explicit, as in the case of that "natural rights" self-defence argument: one's interest in staying alive is a security interest.)

And then we'd all present arguments characterizing the interests at stake and explaining the value we assign to them, and our characterizations and values would be challenged by people who characterize and value them differently, and so on.

If only.

.

[Columbia]

8. Question...

You were paid by the word in your last job right?

"My adversary would say: whatever collective is at stake does not take precedence over the individual interest."

Actually, no. I would say that without individual liberty, you do not have collective liberty and the interests are one and the same.

[MrBenchley]

10. Sorry complex arguments vex you so....

Perhaps that explains how you can oversimplify constitutional law to the point of sheer absurdity.

[Columbia]

7. You talking to me?

I assume so since I am the one who said that. It would've been a little nice to have actually replied to me in that thread if you had something to say to me though.

Anyway, if you'd been here the last few months you'd see that I've backed up my arguments including the unconstitutionality of gun control and reasons why it is and should be so.

We'll talk again when you've sobered up.

[Pert_UK]

13. So you do De Niro impressions then....

:-)

I did reply in that thread, and I don't think the fact that I'd had a couple of beers detracts from the points that I made either there or in the original post on this thread.

Care to point me in the direction of some of your posts on the unconsitutionality of gun control? More importantly, care to explain to me why unconstitutionality necessarily equals a bad thing?

I'd rather discuss whether gun control is a necessary part of society, rather than discuss whether a piece of paper does or doesn't allow it.

Peace.

P.

[Redneck Socialist]

15. It is pretty hard to separate those two discussions...

...at least in the US.

I don't want to open the whole Second Amendment can of worms but the fact that guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution (however you choose to interpret the wording) makes the discussion of whether gun control is a necessary part of society academic at best. Eventually you are going to run up against the constitutional wall.

If some thing is unconstitutional it is not necessarily bad. If we as a society decided that something that is "unconstitutional" is a good thing then we can change the Constitution, but that is a whole other discussion.

[Columbia]

17. Here you go

Well, you did not reply to my post regarding constitutionality in that thread. Instead you started a new thread which I thought was somewhat rude. To be honest, I didn't see too much in this tipsy tirade of yours to respond to. That's why I told you we'd talk later after you'd calmed down a bit.


Here are a few threads where we talk about the 2nd and why it is important:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=992754

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=989959

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=36838

[Pert_UK]

20. Yes I did, but that's not really the point...

I did respond to your comment that stated "I consider all gun control laws unconstitutional", never mind.

I'll have a look at your other comments and see whether I have anything to say.

[Columbia]

21. Ok, I found it

It was a bit buried down from the original post. I still think that post was a bit rude as well, however. Since you wrote them both at about the same time, I guess it's attributable to your previous ALOC.

[Low Drag]

18. I'll try

First, sorry for you loss.

As for RKBA, no right is absolute. Yelling fire when there is no fire, engaging in human sacrifice as part of a religion etc are not protected under the Constitution.
It is a matter of where to draw the line, right?

So on firearms.... I don't like it but background checks at least target bad behavior and make it more difficult for felons to get guns.
They still can get them with ease from the same people that sell drugs and we can't stop the flow of drugs.

So where does that leave us?

[MrBenchley]

19. It leaves us either in reality

or mired in dishonest gun nut fantasy...

In reality, the Second Amendment does not confer any individual right to bear arms. Only the Massachusetts convention even discussed whether it did during the discussion of ratification, and the proposal that the Second Amendment be amended to include it was voted down by the delegates. Court after court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right.

In its entire history, the NRA has never even tried to sue on second amendment grounds, although if their idiotic propaganda were even remotely true, they could have every gun control law in the country overturned in the wink of an eye. They have been quick to sue on other grounds, but not the second.

Also throughout our history, we have been defended by our collective guns, not by individual armed yokels. Thatwas true in 1776, it was true in 1861, it was true in 1918, it was true in 1945, and it was true today.

[Cooper]

27. um, actually . . .

<<In reality, the Second Amendment does not confer any individual right to bear arms. >>

check this out:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

<<Also throughout our history, we have been defended by our collective guns, not by individual armed yokels. Thatwas true in 1776, it was true in 1861, it was true in 1918, it was true in 1945, and it was true today. >>

the original revolt was certainly spearhead by what you call "individual armed yokels." i'd say quite a large amount of civilian arms were used in the Civil War as well, on both sides. when you get into foreign wars, you are right, because we have to ship troops to the war. but anytime Americans actually defended themselves from an attack on our soil, civilian guns have played a pretty big role.

if the colonists had not had guns in 1776, we'd all be drinking tea and bitching about Blair. with the current administration pissing off the world and not even looking over its shoulder at terrorists, why should we trust the government to keep us safe?

[iverglas]

28. well, Benchley

I trust you have now seen the light.

If only you'd known about that wonderful guncite.com twenty years ago, you wouldn't have wasted all this time being so deluded ...

From the mouths of babes to your ear, through the magic of the internet, eh?

.

[MrBenchley]

31. Tee hee hee....

Next up, another dose from Mens News Daily...

[MrBenchley]

30. Guncite? Give us a frigging break.

"the original revolt was certainly spearhead by what you call "individual armed yokels.""
Not even close to true. Guns were in short supply, and the colonies bought them in bulk. We fought the Revolution and every other war with our collective arms.

"why should we trust the government to keep us safe?"
You mean you think having a popgun in your pocket does?

[Hammie]

32. Here is the thing

This country is ostensibly ruled by laws. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Subordinate laws that are in opposition to the Constitution are necessarily bad because they violate the contract on which this country (the U.S.A.) was founded. When times change, our Constitution provides specific mechanisms by which it is to be modified. Simply ignoring, or "interpreting", its provisions is not one of the specified mechanisms.

Is something immoral/wrong simply because it goes against the constitution? No, it is ILLEGAL.

[Pert_UK]

33. Good, well-written explanation - thanks....BUT

to me, that means that you have things backwards.

It seems that rather than worry about what is right, practical, sensible or effective in the current situation and adapt laws to address the problems of the day, you are crippled by the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to show disrespect for this venerable document, but it seems bizarre to me that it is regarded as a "Holy of Holies" and untouchable.

Few people would doubt that the Constitution was written by honest men with the best of intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be infallible throughout eternity. There is nothing wrong with forming a view that takes the Constitution into account - in fact it's the only way in the US - but one should not blindly follow the document and be convinced that one is doing the right thing, because it's no guarantee.

I accept that there are methods through which to amend the Constitution, and that they ought to be followed where Constitutional change is required. However, to suggest that there is some objective way that the Constitution can be read, without interpretation or bias, is just plain wrong.

Every reading of every piece of law involves individual interpretation - that's why lawyers make so much money and why there are so many stupid branches of Christianity. If there were an obvious and clear objective reading of the Constitution then there wouldn't be this argument because everyone would be able to see it.

What you seem to be doing is assuming that one interpretation of the Constitution is the correct and objective one and that everyone else is failing to see it. In actual fact, various different people see sections of the Constitution as meaning or implying different things, and that is where the problems lie here.

Of course, I'll still say

[MrBenchley]

34. Which, in regards to a gun fetish, is irrelevant

since the Constitution does not confer an individual right to own guns, as court after court after court has agreed.

[OpSomBlood]

47. Hmm.

I'm a little confused why people blame guns for gun crimes. Perhaps I'm coming into this debate late, but I don't see how an inanimate object can be at fault for the crime of a human being.

[iverglas]

49. mm hmm

You replied to a post which said:

Which, in regards to a gun fetish, is irrelevant
since the Constitution does not confer an individual
right to own guns, as court after court after court
has agreed.

by saying:

I'm a little confused why people blame guns for gun crimes.
Perhaps I'm coming into this debate late, but I don't see
how an inanimate object can be at fault for the crime of
a human being.

Imagine who else is confused now!

Perhaps, being such a newbie, you were confused about how to post in a thread, and you weren't meaning to reply to that particular post. Hmm?

So maybe what you could do is find a post in which someone blames guns for gun crimes and put your question to the author of that post.

And then, who knows? maybe we would *all* be enlightened.

.

[OpSomBlood]

51. Hmm.

Pardon me, I'm not accustomed to posting in message boards that have nested threading like this. I meant it as a general question to everyone here.

No need for the condescension.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee...

Want to show us where anybody is blaming guns for gun crimes?

But then I know how tenderly solicitious some people are of their guns' feelings and all, and I wouldn't want those guns to be offended in any way.

[OpSomBlood]

56. Logical leap

I suppose I made a bit of a logical leap when I saw that many posters here feel that Americans should not have the right to own guns if they so desire. I assumed that some people consider the gun the menace to society rather than the person using it...that's the only reason I can think of to want to make them illegal.

[MrBenchley]

57. Oh, RKBA "logic"

That explains why your post makes no sense...

[iverglas]

58. ... into the fifth dimension??

I suppose I made a bit of a logical leap when I saw that many posters here feel that Americans should not have the right to own guns if they so desire.

So ... you "leapt" from seeing something that did not exist to a conclusion that the "something" was based on something no rational person would think it was based on.

That is: you leapt from

... many posters here feel that Americans should not have the right to own guns if they so desire

to

people blame guns for gun crimes.

You started in the fourth dimension (where you see things that are not there, and make them into premises consisting of "facts" made up out of thin air) and ended up in the fifth (conclusions can be drawn from premises, thin air or otherwise, completely unrelated to them), as far as I can tell.

Can I play too? *I* see that dolphins are purple, so *I* conclude that dolphins like to eat oranges.

Off to a rousing start. What will the sixth dimension hold?

.

[MrBenchley]

59. If Machine Gun Kelly was a woman...

then shame on you, because men and children suffered too...

[demsrule4life]

60. What will the sixth dimension hold?

I'm sure you are more than qualified to tell us.

[OpSomBlood]

61. ...

Wow. I heard about this place on AA the other day and thought it might be a cool place to exchange ideas. I guess I'll stay in the Democratic Aboveground instead. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Jesus.

[demsrule4life]

62. Trust me

if you are in AA you don't want to hang around here.

[iverglas]

63. haha, good recovery

if you are in AA you don't want to hang around here.

Yeah, except that he didn't say he was "in AA". He said:

I heard about this place on AA the other day

"On" AA. I've got a notion of what that means -- and of why somebody (I cast no aspersions and make no inferences and suggest no improprieties) might wish he just hadn't said it.

.

[MrBenchley]

66. Could have been...

this...

http://forum.americasarmy.com/

could have been this...

http://www.anabolicauthority.com/forum/showthread.php?s=78402cf578c983775978dd93aecc6d63&threadid=2

could have been this...

http://goldsea.com/Air/Issues/issues.html

Or it could have been the best-known AA...

As to why Dems thinks somebody going through recovery from substance abuse might not want to hang out with Democrats, we'll all have to guess....

[demsrule4life]

67. You never get shit right

I never said he should not hangout with democrats. I said he shouldnt hang out down here.

[MrBenchley]

68. Why is that, dems?

Because he's liable to feel drunk after reading the sort of disordered, delusiuonal crap that passes for RKBA "logic"?

[OpSomBlood]

69. AA

I was talking about Air America, but then again most people knew that.

[demsrule4life]

48. I have to ask

Since you are a British citizen and don't live in the United States, why is our constitution any concern to you?

[iverglas]

50. gosh

Since you are a British citizen and don't live in the
United States, why is our constitution any concern to you?

Do we maybe kind of think that this was Pert_UK's whole point?

That the US constitution is not what he wants to discuss?

That in discussing public policy, it's often wise to discuss the principles behind the policy positions, and not just the formal authority for them?

Heck, if that's not what a bunch of other people do when they criticize the UK's firearms policies, I just don't know what they *are* doing. Surely they're not suggesting that the US Constitution is of some concern to citizens of the UK.

I really just don't notice anyone outside the US pouting and sulking and throwing fits when someone else criticizes his/her country's firearms policies or his/her own policy positions. People outside the US who support their own country's firearms policies are generally willing and able to offer facts and argument to support those policies and their positions.

If any of us were to do the equivalent of what the USAmerican constitution thumpers do, we'd just say "there is no constitutional right to possess firearms here!!" and tell y'all that this was an end to the matter. Maybe we should just do that ...

.

[demsrule4life]

52. "there is no constitutional right to possess firearms here"

and since it is here (contrary to MRB's thoughts) why do folks from other countries try to push their thoughts here? Now I will give a little for iverglas since our borders are together, but it sure in the hell does not matter with England.

[MrBenchley]

53. Nor is there one here

As courts have ruled again and again and again...

[MrBenchley]

54. You don't understand...

"The US Constitution isn't about human rights...it's about 'murican human rights...let the furriners ge ttheir own damn human rights...it isn't like you see Murica trying to impose governments on Iraqis and Afghanistaniards, except for their own good.
And don't give me crap about the Courts ruling that the Constitution doesn't give me the right to an assault weapon and a pistol in every pocket....it doesn't matter what the Constitution and the Courts say anyway, since this is a grand human right..."

and blah blah blah....

Now how dumb (or dishonest) does someone have to be to actually buy that crap?

[Pert_UK]

64. Are you telling me to piss off? Or is it a genuine question?

Let me know if you are genuinely interested in why I bother to post in here, but it does look to me like you're implying that it's no business of mine to talk about the US Constitution......

I'm not telling you what to do in your own country, I'm just pointing out startlingly bad logic when it occurs, and lacking evidence. Of course, your ad hominem attack completely undermines any point that I have ever made on here - never mind about using deductive logic or other good argument skills, just tell me I'm a foreigner and shouldn't be talking about it.

[demsrule4life]

65. Genuine question

If I was telling you to piss off I would just say it. So I ask it again why is it such a concern to you?

[Pert_UK]

70. It's not exactly a huge "concern" of mine.....

I just like a good debate and this is an excellent source of discussion and opinion (on the off-chance that you hadn't noticed!)

:-)

I do generally try to avoid saying what the US should or shouldn't do on domestic issues, although I think that my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. You could even argue that an "outsider" can take a more objective view, although I wouldn't necessarily agree.

In this particular thread I was trying to discuss the fact that some people seem obsessed with whether the Constitution says A or B, whereas I'd personally be more interested in whether A or B is the right choice for American society in the modern era.

My point (being a Philosophy graduate) was that there is no such thing as objective morality, and so something isn't made "right" because it happens to be in the Constitution. We're better off debating the effects rather than the source or any interpretation of it, IMHO.

P.