Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not worth wasting time on. But go ahead and keep using strawman arguments.

CorporateLogo wrote:Not worth wasting time on. But go ahead and keep using strawman arguments.

Who are you referring to??

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.

Words don't kill people. Bullets do. There is a degree of finality to gun mishaps which makes such comparisons kind of absurd.

I realize that you're referencing a citizen's capacity to overthrow the state,

No, I'm not. I'm referencing the average citizen's poor speaking and writing skills.

And as for what's worse, "incite to riot" accomplishes a lot without any guns being needed.

The point is that, if guns requiring licensing by the state, then so should any kind of public speech. If guns should be restricted, then censorship should be supported. Simple as that.

Grignard wrote:

CorporateLogo wrote:Not worth wasting time on. But go ahead and keep using strawman arguments.

Who are you referring to??

envy89.

Envy89 wrote:people getting hacked off and killing other people wouldent stop if guns were not allowed.

o i know, lets ban all bladed weapons (from swords, to kicthen knives, to axes... if it has a blade it gets baned) and bows, and all easily swung blunt objects (sorry guys, no more baseball), and rope, and thin wire, and chain, cars (so a hacked off guy cant run over other people).... i could go on and on with this list.

i am just using the same logic as the anit gun people use "if we ban the guns, then gun crime will go down"

well, if we ban all weapons of all kinds, then all of the crime will go down right

Hmmm... I love that kinda of reponse, it reminds me of playground humour, "you smell" sorta of answer to someone you don't like. Nobody said that crime would drop if you ban guns, nor would it stop someone who wanted to go and hurt someone. However lashing out with a sword or a knife at school doesn't have the same impact as letting off a full clip. Somebody coming at you with a lump of wood, length of chain, thin wire, baseball bat, frozen turkey etc can be defended against or run away from. To use your car means you've got to keep that anger going until you have the chance to lash out, but having a gun means you could act on that impulse there and then. If you're going to keep that anger going until your chance appears, then there is no hope for you anyway it''s a mute point.

If you feel THAT strongly about the right to defend your home, then why not restrict all public owned guns to manual loading shotguns? You get 2 shots, which is enough to stop someone in your home, as they will be at close range and in a confined space. This also has the benefit of if the bad guys storms the school, they only get two shots before having to reload, thus giving people the chance to run or crack them over the head with a chair.

The other argurement put forward is the whole concept of defending your freedom against the government or invaders is just so out there it's unreal. Who the hell is going to invade you? If so what on earth do you think your armed forces are for? I think there'll do a damn sight better job then joe public as you wouldn't be fighting Redcoats. Even if you kept your weapons to kill the invader, what do you think there response would be to resistance? Yep you got it, the same as US armed forces, bring in the big guns and sit back, with the added luxury of not having to worry about innocent bystanders.

Let me ask you this, if modern society frowns upon physical violence, and has laws to stop you going around thumping someone because you disagree with them, why is there still so much resistance to giving up something that is designed purely for the purpose of killing? Unlike a blade, which started off as a useful flint tool, that evolved over time and can be used for many things, the gun was simply designed to kill the your enemy, end of.

Its sad Logo, but he does have a valid point. Sadly people do feel the way that he is describing.

Kinda like the morons that want to ban .50 Bmg rifles cause they are afraid people will take down Commercial jetliners on takeoff or landing....

Or people who want to ban every knife over a certain length because people wont rob stores/people without them.....


Dogma, my main thing with you is that you tend to hide behind facts that based of my real life experiences with the Army are so far off base that its unreal.

If recruitment was so far off base then how come every BDE ive ever come across that actually ment something was always over strength?

Sure retainment may be down, but look at any other job out there and see how many people stick with it over 3-6 years for life. (Average entry enlistment is 3-6 yrs)
Also in that timeline how many people change jobs in that timeframe?

While I was in....
I was never broke....
I was never denied college...
College was paid for....
I had my Shelter/food/basic needs paid for...
Paid Vacation.....
Givin all the Honor and Respect one could possibly want.
Traveled the world (Non-combat) for free....
Never felt the impact of any of your statistical shortcomming that seem to plague the armed forces.

Plus statistics on PTSD are so jacked up its not even funny.
If I wanted a free paycheck for the rest of my life all I had to say was "I dream that im back in country every night and I see Haji when I sleep too!"
Yes it would have been that simple.
In fact Im still getting a phone call from Inactive Reserve counselers about ever 6 months fishing for the PTSD.

Now how many people do you think are scum enough to take this route? Sadly alot.
Like I said earlier ive only met one guy that honestly had the PTSD.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm referencing the average citizen's poor speaking and writing skills.

Then you're erecting a strawman by equating speaking to gun ownership. Which is much, much worse.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And as for what's worse, "incite to riot" accomplishes a lot without any guns being needed.

But there are multiple decisions involved when a riot occurs. Sure, someone may act as it s face, but everyone else still has to choose to follow. No one gets a choice when it comes to being shot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The point is that, if guns requiring licensing by the state, then so should any kind of public speech. If guns should be restricted, then censorship should be supported. Simple as that.

No, it isn't.

Wolfstan wrote:If you feel THAT strongly about the right to defend your home, then why not restrict all public owned guns to manual loading shotguns? You get 2 shots, which is enough to stop someone in your home, as they will be at close range and in a confined space.

That's pretty good as long as I can be sure that my home will never be invaded by more than 1 bad guy, and that I'll have time and space to maneuver that shotgun. I guess, over where you are, burglars are a lot more polite, they knock on the door and tell you "Burglar, I'm finishing a bit of tea before I come in..." :S

Wolfstan wrote:This also has the benefit of if the bad guys storms the school, they only get two shots before having to reload, thus giving people the chance to run or crack them over the head with a chair.

Wow, I wasn't at all aware that criminals were so law-abiding while they committed crimes. I always thought, by definition, you could assume criminals would NOT follow the law. For example, in the US, it's against the law to even use firearms in the commision of a crime. So by your logic, it's never going to be an issue at all. :S

jp400 wrote:
Dogma, my main thing with you is that you tend to hide behind facts that based of my real life experiences with the Army are so far off base that its unreal.

If recruitment was so far off base then how come every BDE ive ever come across that actually ment something was always over strength?

Because they're accepting lower quality recruits. I'm not saying that you are such a recruit, but its pretty well documented that the standards for enlistment have decreased fairly steadily over the last 8 years. While an increase in selectivity, combined with a short service life, has lowered the overall number of quality applicants over the last 20.

Here's a couple articles that talk about my position.
This one from Time magazine.
This is a report on officer shortages which isn't really what I've been discussing, but is interesting none the less.
This is from the Rand institute, which I normally abhor. They do have some interesting stuff in there though.

jp400 wrote:
Sure retainment may be down, but look at any other job out there and see how many people stick with it over 3-6 years for life. (Average entry enlistment is 3-6 yrs)
Also in that timeline how many people change jobs in that timeframe?

Comparing the services to the corporate sector and simultaneously treating it like a magical gateway to success is non-congruent. Sure, people can succeed in the armed forces, but they can also succeed in the corporate world. And actually tend to do so at a much higher rate.

jp400 wrote:
While I was in....
I was never broke....
I was never denied college...
College was paid for....
I had my Shelter/food/basic needs paid for...
Paid Vacation.....
Givin all the Honor and Respect one could possibly want.
Traveled the world (Non-combat) for free....
Never felt the impact of any of your statistical shortcomming that seem to plague the armed forces.

You wouldn't because the statistical short-comings have little to do with individual soldiers, but a great deal to with the state of the services. And their status as form of upward mobility for those without options.

jp400 wrote:
Plus statistics on PTSD are so jacked up its not even funny.
If I wanted a free paycheck for the rest of my life all I had to say was "I dream that im back in country every night and I see Haji when I sleep too!"
Yes it would have been that simple.
In fact Im still getting a phone call from Inactive Reserve counselers about ever 6 months fishing for the PTSD.

Part of that is the VA pushing for more funding, which they sorely need. The other part is that unreported PTSD creates a terrible PR situation which can severely hamper recruitment. You are right though, PTSD is nominally over-reported. Just like all psychological trauma.

jp400 wrote:
Now how many people do you think are scum enough to take this route? Sadly alot.
Like I said earlier ive only met one guy that honestly had the PTSD.

I don't know. I think you might be over criticizing your fellow servicemen. PTSD doesn't have to be debilitating to affect your life, and I'd rather see soldiers receive too much care than too little.

dogma wrote:Then you're erecting a strawman by equating speaking to gun ownership.

No.

I'm saying that my Second Amendment Rights should be no more infringed than your First Amendment Rights.

It's a very simple concept.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No.

I'm saying that my Second Amendment Rights should be no more infringed than your First Amendment Rights.

It's a very simple concept.

And I'm saying that is faulty comparison as armament and speech are completely incomparable rights.

Even if they were similar, you don't have the freedom to verbally assault someone as it is deleterious to a free society. The same can be said of unrestricted gun ownership. It negatively impacts society by opening the door to the infringement of individual rights by other individuals.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No.

I'm saying that my Second Amendment Rights should be no more infringed than your First Amendment Rights.

It's a very simple concept.

And I'm saying that is faulty comparison as armament and speech are completely incomparable rights.

Even if they were similar, you don't have the freedom to verbally assault someone as it is deleterious to a free society. The same can be said of unrestricted gun ownership. It negatively impacts society by opening the door to the infringement of individual rights by other individuals.

Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.

And you are comparing illegal conduct, that is conduct that is inherently harmful (verbal assault) to the potential for harm with deadly weapons. What you're essentially trying to argue is not verbal assault laws, but rather the old "fighting words" doctrine. under that doctrine, those words that would cause violence or a violent reaction in the listener were banned. Thus, you could regulate content by saying it was too dangerous. The Supreme Court eventually narrowed that doctrine to immediate invitations to brawl.

Owning certain weapons is similar to that, i think. Certain weapons can be very dangerous (like speaking against war in a pro-war town) but it still should be protected. Only the violent conduct should be prohibited.

I agree that some regulation is allowed, after all speech can't kill a person while a handgun can, but speech is regulated through parade permits, time and manner restrictions, etc.

I just think that any argument that speech is an absolute right while gun ownership isn't is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Now, I don't think we should only have the rights enumberated in the constitution, but I think giving any of them up, even if it's one you don't like, is a bad thing.

Polonius wrote:
Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.

They're incomparable in the sense that while the same logical process might apply to arguments for either right, the degree to which those arguments can be reasonably pushed is entirely unrelated. To use DD's example: It is not reasonable to assume that, because we force people to take firearm training courses, we can presume to do the same for the right to public speech. The logic is there, but the premises are different enough that concurrent logic is not sufficient to establish justification for equivalent regulation.

Polonius wrote:
And you are comparing illegal conduct, that is conduct that is inherently harmful (verbal assault) to the potential for harm with deadly weapons. What you're essentially trying to argue is not verbal assault laws, but rather the old "fighting words" doctrine. under that doctrine, those words that would cause violence or a violent reaction in the listener were banned. Thus, you could regulate content by saying it was too dangerous. The Supreme Court eventually narrowed that doctrine to immediate invitations to brawl.

True, it was a poor analogy on my part. I didn't think it through all the way. The intent was to convey how we might restrict freedom of speech in order to preserve the integrity of that freedom.

Though, now that I think of it, there might be some mileage in pressing a similar argument for the 2nd amendment. Essentially, if we presume that the right to bear arms is to be interpreted as the right to security it could follow that certain arms (assault weapons, explosives, et al) serve to negatively impact the security of others in much the same way that verbal abuse serves to constrict free speech.

Polonius wrote:
Owning certain weapons is similar to that, i think. Certain weapons can be very dangerous (like speaking against war in a pro-war town) but it still should be protected. Only the violent conduct should be prohibited.

I agree that some regulation is allowed, after all speech can't kill a person while a handgun can, but speech is regulated through parade permits, time and manner restrictions, etc.

That's really what I was trying to get at.

Polonius wrote:
I just think that any argument that speech is an absolute right while gun ownership isn't is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. Now, I don't think we should only have the rights enumberated in the constitution, but I think giving any of them up, even if it's one you don't like, is a bad thing.

I don't view either right as an absolute in the sense that they are above reprisal. That's one of the brilliant aspects of the Constitution; its illusory language serves as a perpetual source of debate, which forces the continual reevaluation of the means we utilize to regulate ourselves. However, as I said earlier, I do feel it is impossible to treat the freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms as though legislation regarding one can be indicative of steps that must be taken regarding the other.

I think this may be a good time to point out that technically speaking outside military use in the US true "Assault Rifles" dont exist.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
-Department of the Army Deff-

Note the phrase "Secective-Fire." This means that the rifle needs to be at least semi and 3 or 4 round burst capable. What you get when you go to your friendly local gun shop and pull an Ar-15 off the shelf is a Semi-Automatic sporting rifle that looks much like a Colt M-4 carbine.

Just thought id post this.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Dogma, buddy, I don't quite see how they are incomparable rights. I can't think of any internally consistent argument for the enormous expansion of the right to free speech that wouldn't also apply to the second amendment.

They're incomparable in the sense that while the same logical process might apply to arguments for either right, the degree to which those arguments can be reasonably pushed is entirely unrelated. To use DD's example: It is not reasonable to assume that, because we force people to take firearm training courses, we can presume to do the same for the right to public speech. The logic is there, but the premises are different enough that concurrent logic is not sufficient to establish justification for equivalent regulation.

Why not? What is different about the right to bear arms that makes it less broad?

You can't say it's the impact it has on other people, because speech that impacts others can and often is highly regulated: you can't march down Wall St. at 3 in the afternoon every day, you can't use a megaphone at your 2am rally.

Clearly there are some differences in the nature and application of the rights, but since the right to own guns is a consitutional right, any banning of weapons would have to meet strict scrutiny: meaning there is a compelling state interest at stake and the law is drawn narrowly. Artillery, mortars, landmines, poison gas and heavy machine guns probably are all so hugely destructive that there is a state interest in banning them, or only allowing highly trained people to own them.

Obviously none of the rights are absolute, they all can be curtailed, but the courts have pretty consistently broadened those rights over the last 75 years. I just don't see a good legal or logical argument for why gun rights shouldn't enjoy the same broadening.

Polonius wrote:
Why not? What is different about the right to bear arms that makes it less broad?

You can't say it's the impact it has on other people, because speech that impacts others can and often is highly regulated: you can't march down Wall St. at 3 in the afternoon every day, you can't use a megaphone at your 2am rally.

Public speech without proper regulation might cause a few people to lose some sleep. Using an assault weapon without proper training might cause a few people to lose their lives. It is the relative severity of the immediate consequences which merits more stringent regulation of firearms. And also that severity which keeps the premises of either argument from serving as evidence in the other; at least insofar as you can use softer regulations on speech as a means of advocating softer limits on firearms. It doesn't make sense to say something to the effect of: "We don't license the possession of megaphones, therefore we should not license the possession of firearms."

Polonius wrote:
Clearly there are some differences in the nature and application of the rights, but since the right to own guns is a consitutional right, any banning of weapons would have to meet strict scrutiny: meaning there is a compelling state interest at stake and the law is drawn narrowly. Artillery, mortars, landmines, poison gas and heavy machine guns probably are all so hugely destructive that there is a state interest in banning them, or only allowing highly trained people to own them.

Certainly for a ban that is the case, but I've not been discussing a ban of any weapons. The case against the type of arms you describe is fairly obvious in that they are all, by definition, fairly indiscriminate. However, with regard to other weapons (rifles, handguns, shotguns) I don't think it is a great constriction of rights to require that a person be licensed, and educated, in their use. As you say, there is a direct analog in that the use of megaphones, and other sound projectors, in public demonstration is regulated for the public good.

Polonius wrote:
Obviously none of the rights are absolute, they all can be curtailed, but the courts have pretty consistently broadened those rights over the last 75 years. I just don't see a good legal or logical argument for why gun rights shouldn't enjoy the same broadening.

With that broadening came additional restriction. The progressively expanding disruptive capacity of public protest is a good example. As it became easier for demonstration to obstruct the flow of daily life the regulations on that demonstration grew more strict: assembly requiring a permit in many municipalities. Therefore it follows, at least in general trend, that the increasing capacity of armament to do harm to the public should follow a pattern of progressively greater restriction. Especially with regard to the specific licensing of individuals to acquire certain weapons on the fulfillment of a given set of conditions.

Wolfstan wrote:Nobody said that crime would drop if you ban guns.

.......... then WHY do peopel want to ban them????

jp400 wrote:Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
-Department of the Army Deff-

if i dident have the new american anthem video as a sig i would sig that.


"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Envy89 wrote:
.......... then WHY do peopel want to ban them????

One of the reasons is that many people who want to see them banned have an unusual fear. Not of firearms, but of the people who actively seek to acquire them. They think of gun enthusiasts, and see Deliverance.

Another reason is that there is some significant concern for a kind of 'civil arms race' between the police and criminals. The thinking being that legal assault weapons are cheaper, and more easily acquired than illegal ones. Thus requiring more stringent, and therefore expensive, standards for law enforcement officers.

Envy89 wrote:
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Quotes which have no bearing on the decision to regulate the bearing of arms. Once you open the door to a kind of social studies argument you're essentially doing the same for the other side. At which point the goal posts will be set to something like the "nearest social good", and you'll be using evidence from 200 years ago. The best argument for 2nd amendment rights is one based legal history; basically what Polonius offered. You also might get some mileage out of the difficulty in defining assault weapons if you're arguing against a ban, but most serious debates never feature such talk.

"Another reason is that there is some significant concern for a kind of 'civil arms race' between the police and criminals. The thinking being that legal assault weapons are cheaper, and more easily acquired than illegal ones."
-Dogma

I can promise you that full auto firearms are cheaper to get/make then they are to buy off the shelf. Once again any law thats based off this train of thought only hurts the average person like you and me, not the criminal.

jp400 wrote:
I can promise you that full auto firearms are cheaper to get/make then they are to buy off the shelf. Once again any law thats based off this train of thought only hurts the average person like you and me, not the criminal.

The concern isn't about assault weapons being bought off the shelf, but about them being stolen from legitimate owners after their purchase. About 78% of the weapons used in criminal activity come from within the United States, and a little over 50% of inmates have stolen a firearm of some type; suggesting that the primary source of illicit firearms is theft from legal owners.

In the UK there are plenty of illegal weapons brought in from the continent.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK there are plenty of illegal weapons brought in from the continent.

But ultimately there are vastly less guns in the hands of criminals than in the US. You can see this directly reflected in the guns used in all manner of crimes, particularly homicide. There are obviously a lot of other factors at work in the comparison, but it's very hard to argue that making it harder for people to get their hands on guns doesn't make it harder for criminals to get their hands on the same.

sebster wrote:t's very hard to argue that making it harder for people to get their hands on guns doesn't make it harder for criminals to get their hands on the same.

O RLY?

Is there any college campus in the US where you can't buy weed?

Despite it being illegal?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
O RLY?

Is there any college campus in the US where you can't buy weed?

Despite it being illegal?

Citing a ubiquitous illegal substance is not evidence that making said substance legal would not substantially increase supply.

dogma wrote:Citing a ubiquitous illegal substance is not evidence that making said substance legal would not substantially increase supply.

And yet it clearly shows that attempting to restrict legal access to illegal stuff appears to have no effect on criminal access to said stuff.

What's next, you want to argue that a similar situation doesn't exist for crack?

Notionally, there is extremely limited legal usage for these things. Legal use is highly restricted. And yet, they aren't hard to get at all for a enormous number of "criminals".

So therefore, the problem isn't supply, but criminal behaviour which is undeterred and only insignificantly restricted.

dogma wrote:Academically talented kids who want to join the services go to Annapolis, West Point, or the Air Force Academy. They do not enlist, at least not in appreciable numbers. Enlist is a very specific bit of terminology.

Again, not necessarily true, most of them go through ROTC. You'd be surprised the amount of animosity against "Academy Kids" there actually is in the Air Force. Most of that has to do with how arrogant and whorish they are. Of course, when there's a 8-1 male/female ratio and the females have dated everyone in their class(generally), it's hard not to see them as such, especially once the males realize there's options outside of the military to sleep with. Also, most Academy kids don't know how the military actually works(they think the Academy is a good indication, it's not), whereas a good number of ROTC graduates(again, most of them engineers and other such hard degrees) are either prior enlisted or had immediate family members in the military and know that just because you're an officer you're not the "sh**" and you don't know more than your NCOs.