Magazine Restrictions

[GenSeneca]

nope, he can't. He wants his toy, and no logic will stop it.

You have not offered any logic thus far. Logic is, after all, a process of using a premise, or multiple premises, to arrive at a conclusion. Much like the scientific method, it is based on using facts, not emotion. Fear of what someone "might" do, or "could" do, is an emotional premise and that is not the foundation of a logical conclusion.

If Amaed Hussain Mahamad moves in next door, and even has a criminal record....

Even though you will read what I'm about to say and pretend like I never said it when the issue comes up again, I'll state it for everyone else:

If an individual is found guilty of violating another individuals rights in a court of law, then that individual should lose ALL his rights. Any freedoms that individual wishes to enjoy should be carefully considered and ruled upon by the justice system. So no, unless expressly authorized by the courts to legally obtain or possess a firearm or other weapon, an individual convicted of violating the rights of someone else should not be allowed to obtain or possess them.

Remember what I said about having the freedom to exercise your rights so long as you do not violate the rights of others? I meant it. If you violate the rights of others, you give up your own rights and must seek permission from the government to do just about anything from that point forward.

then why should he not be able to have that nuclear weapon he got on the black market in Uzbekistan?

If such a market exists, then why haven't the "terrorists" obtained them and used them against us or our allies? Why didn't Saddam pick up a couple? It would have certainly given us second thoughts about invading his country... Why is Iran spending billions on a nuclear program if they can simply go to the "black market in Uzbekistan" and pick up some nukes for a lot less money?

Who is the government to deny him , as untill he blows it up and kills a 500,000 to a million plus...its all legal and his right.

Actually, there is a non-proliferation treaty that does not allow the sale or importation of nuclear devices between countries. You might want to get a fresh bail of hay, your strawman is looking kind of flat.

There is a right to free speech, but you can't yell fire in a theater for no reason..

But by your "logic", we should ban all talking in theatres... or better yet ban all theatres just to be sure nobody yells "Fire!" inside of one.

I can't yell threw a megaphone in the street my political views at midnight why not? because we used some logic.

Because it's a violation of the rights of others, that's why not. You have a right to free speech, not a right to force others to listen against their will.

As I keep saying, your rights end where mine begin. Do whatever you wish in the pursuit of your own happiness, just don't violate the rights of anyone else during that pursuit.

But logic can't apply to people when it comes to guns...no thats just wrong.

Still waiting to see you offer something that resembles logic...

 

[Apathy]

1)By that line of reasoning, it's dangerous to let people own any kind of firearm, after all they might use it to violate the rights of someone else, correct? So shall we limit everyones rights based on what "might" happen, based on what "could" happen? We would have no rights left...

2)"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson


3)Who could buy one? Who would buy one? Do you have any concept of the costs involved? Storage and maintainence costs alone would be enough to put Bill Gates in the poor house. 4)The fanciful strawman argument that if nukes were legal to purchase that everybody would run out and buy one has no basis in logic or reason.

5)It's not as if there are nukes sitting on shelves at Nukes "R" Us just waiting to be purchased... If there were, there are gazillionaire oil sheiks in the middle east who would have cleared them off the shelves by now. They have to start their own programs, like Iran, and build their own because there simply are none for sale.

6)You may as well be worried that by letting people purchase space shuttles and rocket boosters that every kid on the block is going to run out and start their very own space program... It's just absurd. If I were to suggest that people should be allowed to purchase space shuttles and rocket boosters, you would ask, who could and who would? Would it be dangerous to allow people to have a space shuttle and rocket boosters? Hell yes, but since we both know that only a government supported by millions of taxpayers can afford a space program, making it legal is really a moot point.

1) To allow such weaponry in private hands is irresponsible. To follow the letter of the ammendment to its absolute extemes while ignoring the spirit of the ammendment leads to absurdities. The intent was so the nation could maintain a basic militia so we would have them to fight when needed. It wasnt there intent to give a single man the capability of killing millions within seconds.

2) Washington had no idea that we would be capable of causing such destruction. Washington was thinking more along the lines of musket and cannons not somethin that could kill millions instantly. Any reasonable person could see that nuclear weapons would not be protected under the 2nd amendment.

3) Does it matter? Nukes arent protected under second amendment you are ignoring the historical context.

4) I dont need a strawman when someone is seriously arguing for the legalization of nuclear weapons. That is the stawman people argue against when it comes to the second amendment and here you are seriously arguing for it.

5) There is a good reason why they are not for sale privately. Because its illegal, highly monitered, and extremily secure.

6) Strawman and space programs dont kill millions.

 

[BigRob]

If such a market exists, then why haven't the "terrorists" obtained them and used them against us or our allies? Why didn't Saddam pick up a couple? It would have certainly given us second thoughts about invading his country... Why is Iran spending billions on a nuclear program if they can simply go to the "black market in Uzbekistan" and pick up some nukes for a lot less money?

It is not so much that one can go and pick out which nuclear device they would like, this "black market" makes it easier to access harder to find items...We have done a good job in the last decade or so in containing this market.. but make no mistake, it existed in the past.. of that there can be no dispute.

Actually, there is a non-proliferation treaty that does not allow the sale or importation of nuclear devices between countries. You might want to get a fresh bail of hay, your strawman is looking kind of flat.

It would seem that a treaty cannot override a person's rights. If, for example, the United States signed a treaty banning the importation of automatic weapons/parts etc and then refused to allow the purchase of such items domestically it would be in violation of the 2nd amendment from your reading.... correct?

Essentially, you seem to be saying that people cannot possess nuclear devices because the government says so....but if I understand your position on the 2nd amendment correct, you would oppose such a thing?

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree they are entirely subjective.

Not only are they subjective but it's bass-akwards. I agreed with you earlier when you said that those wishing to limit an individual's rights had the onus on them to prove their case. As such, if you feel a particular individual poses a "foreseeable threat" then take that person to court and strip that individual of his rights through due process.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - 14th amendment, Section 1​

Stripping every individual of their rights because of the "foreseeable threat" posed by one individual (or even multiple individuals) is akin to a teacher punishing the entire class for the actions of one malcontent.

Let me ask you this... do you think I could reasonably argue that I have a right to safety under the 9th Amendment?

Safety: 1. The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury.

I would say No, you do not have such a right. Rights are freedoms of action that impose no obligations on others in order to be fulfilled... At least that is my operational definition of a Right. If you have a "right" to safety, then you could not leave your home without someone violating that right, heck... You couldn't even sit IN your home without the potential of that "right" being violated.

If I can (and I think it would be possible to argue that) then it makes sense to establish that someone must meet a criteria (and the criteria can be up for debate) to show a "reasonable threat and proportionate defense" so as not to infringe upon my undefined rights under the 9th Amendment.

As I said, if you can prove in a court of law through due process that an individual poses a "reasonable threat" and that limiting, or stripping away, that individuals rights is a "proportionate defense", then be my guest.

However, when you claim that an inanimate object poses a "reasonable threat" and therefore suggest that all individuals be stripped of their right to obtain or possess that object, then we will not be in agreement.

Many rights are limited regularly.

Does that make it OK? Rights are also violated regularly, does that make the violation of rights OK?

It is not so much that one can go and pick out which nuclear device they would like, this "black market" makes it easier to access harder to find items...We have done a good job in the last decade or so in containing this market.. but make no mistake, it existed in the past.. of that there can be no dispute.

If you would like to make the case that a particular individual, or group of individuals (convicts, white supremacists, the clinically insane etc.), poses a "reasonable threat" and therefore should not be allowed to pursue deadly weapons (nuclear arms included), then by all means take them to court and deprive them of their liberty by due process of law.

It would seem that a treaty cannot override a person's rights. If, for example, the United States signed a treaty banning the importation of automatic weapons/parts etc and then refused to allow the purchase of such items domestically it would be in violation of the 2nd amendment from your reading.... correct?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. - Article VI, section 1​

According to our Constitution, or at least the prevailing interpretation of the treaty clause, an international treaty can override individual rights. Do I agree with this? No, but it clearly states that such treaties become part of the "supreme law of the land" even when in conflict with the Constitution itself.

Essentially, you seem to be saying that people cannot possess nuclear devices because the government says so....but if I understand your position on the 2nd amendment correct, you would oppose such a thing?

Tu Quoque: the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

If I were to say I was against individuals owning nuclear weapons, that too would be inconsistent, after all, I do believe it is our right to bear arms.

There is no inconsistency in my position because, despite Pockets crooning, it is based on logic. Whether it's an axe, a firearm, or a nuclear weapon makes no difference, they are inanimate objects, tools, that in the wrong hands can be used to violate rights. It is the individual that seeks to use weapons to violate the rights of others that should have his own rights brought into question, not the rights and liberties of all individuals.

Which poses a greater threat: An axe in the hands of a homicidal mass murderer, or a nuclear bomb in the hands of a pacifist? The logical determination of a threat potential is measured by the person in control of the weapon, not the weapon itself. To arrive at a different conclusion, that threat potential is based on the weapon rather than the individual in control of the weapon, is a fallacious conclusion that has it's basis in emotional premises.

Fear of what might happen, or what could happen, is an emotional premise that leads to an irrational conclusion - Because weapon X poses a greater threat potential than weapon Y, we should ban weapon X.

If you cannot trust a particular individual with a nuclear bomb, how can you trust that same individual with a gun?

Pockets rationalization would be that the individual with a gun has a lesser potential to violate rights but since we are talking about the same individual, then he is basing his assessment on the weapon and not the individual - which, as I said, is not a rational conclusion.

 

[GenSeneca]

In all, the restriction on "large capacity" magazines is another ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.

Both of your posts were spot on, thank you for the contribution.

I wanted to point something out...

I cannot legally purchase this gun because it uses a 47 round magazine:

But I can legally purchase this heavy machine gun complete with trolley and 250 round ammo belts:

The Ohio law that limits magazine capacity affects only detachable magazines but not ammo belts, so while I cannot legally obtain a 47 round magazine, I can legally obtain an ammo belt that holds more than five times as many rounds.

That is the result when logic and reason are tossed out the door so that emotions and political grandstanding can be the determining factor in which gun laws are arbitrary decided.

 

[BigRob]

Not only are they subjective but it's bass-akwards. I agreed with you earlier when you said that those wishing to limit an individual's rights had the onus on them to prove their case. As such, if you feel a particular individual poses a "foreseeable threat" then take that person to court and strip that individual of his rights through due process.

Those "people" have already had their day in court through various "gun control" cases and have lost.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - 14th amendment, Section 1​

OK, and I can point out again that no one was denied due process because the courts have heard the arguments numerous times and gun control continues to exist... Even in the latest case in which the DC handgun ban was basically struck down Justic Scalia wrote that (Don't remember the the quote word for word) rights have limits.

Stripping every individual of their rights because of the "foreseeable threat" posed by one individual (or even multiple individuals) is akin to a teacher punishing the entire class for the actions of one malcontent.

No one was stripped of their rights. Gun ownership is still legal.

Safety: 1. The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury.

I would say No, you do not have such a right. Rights are freedoms of action that impose no obligations on others in order to be fulfilled... At least that is my operational definition of a Right. If you have a "right" to safety, then you could not leave your home without someone violating that right, heck... You couldn't even sit IN your home without the potential of that "right" being violated.

Given the language in the CA Constitution, why would I not have that right in California?

As I said, if you can prove in a court of law through due process that an individual poses a "reasonable threat" and that limiting, or stripping away, that individuals rights is a "proportionate defense", then be my guest.

I don't have to make that case... it has already been made in courts..and it has won.

However, when you claim that an inanimate object poses a "reasonable threat" and therefore suggest that all individuals be stripped of their right to obtain or possess that object, then we will not be in agreement.

The fact that it is "inanimate" is completely irrelevant, especially when talking about a bomb. I think a very good case can be made that a private citizen with a nuclear device in their house (regardless of if it is just sitting there) is a "reasonable threat." If that person is not an expert at handling the weapon, or has the proper storage in place, it can cause a serious hazard even if it does not detonate.

Does that make it OK? Rights are also violated regularly, does that make the violation of rights OK?

No, it just makes it legal.

If you would like to make the case that a particular individual, or group of individuals (convicts, white supremacists, the clinically insane etc.), poses a "reasonable threat" and therefore should not be allowed to pursue deadly weapons (nuclear arms included), then by all means take them to court and deprive them of their liberty by due process of law.

Even in the 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago it was upheld that there continue to be some restrictions on some issues related to the 2nd amendment.

With so many court cases on the issue, I don't see how you can argue that people have been denied due process.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. - Article VI, section 1​

According to our Constitution, or at least the prevailing interpretation of the treaty clause, an international treaty can override individual rights. Do I agree with this? No, but it clearly states that such treaties become part of the "supreme law of the land" even when in conflict with the Constitution itself.

That same clause also states that "the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Given this, it seems rational to argue that the laws of the United States (at least in the language here) at least have the potential to override individual rights.

Tu Quoque: the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Clarification: To make clear or easier to understand..

Use in a sentence:
He was asking for clarification of your position.

Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.

If I were to say I was against individuals owning nuclear weapons, that too would be inconsistent, after all, I do believe it is our right to bear arms.

Which poses a greater threat: An axe in the hands of a homicidal mass murderer, or a nuclear bomb in the hands of a pacifist? The logical determination of a threat potential is measured by the person in control of the weapon, not the weapon itself. To arrive at a different conclusion, that threat potential is based on the weapon rather than the individual in control of the weapon, is a fallacious conclusion that has it's basis in emotional premises.

I can agree that the threat can be measured by the person in control of the weapon rather than the weapon itself... but that makes a lot of assumptions about how the weapon is stored and maintained etc.

 

[BigRob]

That is the result when logic and reason are tossed out the door so that emotions and political grandstanding can be the determining factor in which gun laws are arbitrary decided.

Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

 

[Rick]

"...the legitimate second amendment right of defending yourself and your family..." Hmmmm? The Second Amendment does not say anything about defending one's self or family. It says that the right to keep and bear arms has to do with the security of a free state.

That's incidental language from the 18th century, in a period when ordinary crime was a thousandth what is today, and the threats to individuals were mostly derivative of those that threatened the state itself, viz, indians, invasion and insurrections. But the ultimate right being recognized is that of self defense generally. Today, the most likely threat is not indian attacks, but ordinary crime, for which nobody would use a nuclear weapon.

 

[Rick]

What is subjective is "foreseeable threats"

Nonsense. Violent crime is pervasive in the US.

and a "proportional defense."

Nonsense. Nobody wants a nuke to fight off eg home invasions.

 

[BigRob]

Nonsense. Violent crime is pervasive in the US.

Nonsense. Nobody wants a nuke to fight off eg home invasions.

Apparently you failed (yet again) to actually read my post and comprehend my argument.

I have been arguing that nuclear weapons would not fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment because they do not represent a "proportional defense." Then you come along and say "nonsense" and then repeat what I already said.

Pathetic.

 

[Rick]

Apparently you failed (yet again) to actually read my post and comprehend my argument.

I have been arguing that nuclear weapons would not fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment because they do not represent a "proportional defense." Then you come along and say "nonsense" and then repeat what I already said.

Pathetic.

Your "proportional defense" stuff is yet more nonsense - the second amendment doesn't require any such thing.

 

[BigRob]

Your "proportional defense" stuff is yet more nonsense - the second amendment doesn't require any such thing.

Then you support the position that private citizens can obtain nuclear weapons?

 

[GenSeneca]

Those "people" have already had their day in court through various "gun control" cases and have lost.

In 1920 I could have walked into a gun store and purchased a fully automatic machine gun, I had that right in 1920. In 2010 I have no such right. That right was stripped from me before I was born because of the actions of those who abused their liberty. I never got my day in court, I never had the opportunity to face my accuser, I never got a chance to defend myself against the charges that my owning an MG posed a "reasonable threat", I simply had my right stripped away without due process.

Justic Scalia wrote that (Don't remember the the quote word for word) rights have limits.

The only limit necessary on rights is banning individuals from violating the rights of others in the exercise of their own rights. In the event that a particular individual uses his liberty to violate the rights of another, then it is that individual - and only that individual - who should lose his rights and liberties. To use the actions of some as reason to take away, or limit, the rights of everyone else out of fear they too may abuse the same liberties is, as my sig states, an unjust and unwise jealousy, it is not the workings of a moral and just system.

No one was stripped of their rights. Gun ownership is still legal.

It would seem you view gun rights like a pile of sticks. Pieces can be broken off, individual sticks can be removed, even by the handful, but so long as there is the smallest splinter of wood left on the "pile", then you consider the right to be in tact.

In the event that government banned all firearms except for single shot, bolt action, 22. calibre rifles, would you say that no one had been stripped of their right since it was still legal to own that one particular firearm? How about the government lifting the bans on all firearms but saying that anyone who wished to purchase or own one had to obtain a license from the state?

Keep in mind that if you require permission from the government to exercise a right, then it is not a right at all, it is a privilege. So while our actual rights are abolished and become privileges that are subject to the whims of the state, you may think that the right has not been stripped but it has. The right still exists, rights cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be recognized or ignored. In the case of gun rights, they have been legally obliterated and replaced with gun privileges that are subject to permission from the state in order to be exercised.

Given the language in the CA Constitution, why would I not have that right in California?

We obviously have a different concept of rights. While it's not a perfect analogy, the easiest way to differentiate between what is, and what is not, a right is to think about whether or not you could exercise that right while alone on a desert island. Freedom of speech, check, freedom of religion, check, right to bear arms, check... the "right" to security? Exactly how would such a right be exercised? Not even you can eliminate all threats to your own personal safety, so it is absurd to think such an impossible task should be an obligation placed on others.

If that person is not an expert at handling the weapon, or has the proper storage in place, it can cause a serious hazard even if it does not detonate.

"What If..." scenarios are an emotional appeal. You are saying that "if" X happened, then that would be bad, therefore I should be afraid of X happening, and that should cause me to abandon logic and reason in order to embrace emotion, thus agreeing with you that Right Y should not be a right at all but a privilege that's subject to government permission and all out of fear someone may abuse their liberty of Y to cause X.

No, it just makes it legal.

That is correct, it only makes it legal, it does not make it right, it does not make the decision moral, ethical, or just.

Even in the 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago it was upheld that there continue to be some restrictions on some issues related to the 2nd amendment.

Which only makes it "legal"...

With so many court cases on the issue, I don't see how you can argue that people have been denied due process.

Because the actions of people who died before I was born have been determined to be reason enough to strip me of the rights they abused out of fear that I too may abuse the same right.

Given this, it seems rational to argue that the laws of the United States (at least in the language here) at least have the potential to override individual rights.

That is precisely what I said...

Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.

Your argument is fallacious becuase your primary premises are appeals to consequence and appeal to fear, it is based on using "what if..." and worst case scenarios. These are the premises that you offer in support of your conclusion but the premises themselves are logical fallacies.

The premise that 'rights have limits' is one that I agree with, it serves as a premise along side the premise that people do not have the right to violate the rights of others, thus leading to the conclusion that the only limit on rights should be one that makes it illegal to violate the rights of others:

Premise 1: Rights have limits
Premise 2: No right to violate rights
Conclusion: Rights are limited to not violating the rights of others.

Now let's look at yours:

Premise 1: Rights have limits
Premise 2: Appeal to fear
Premise 3: Appeal to consequence
Conclusion: Any limit placed on a right is justifiable when based on the fear of a consequence.

So far, everyone that has opposed my position has used fear as their rationale for holding their contrary position. Can you make an argument for your position that is not based on these emotional fallacies?

I can agree that the threat can be measured by the person in control of the weapon rather than the weapon itself... but that makes a lot of assumptions about how the weapon is stored and maintained etc.

In short, you do not trust everyone having the freedom to exercise certain rights, especially those rights with the potential to cause horrific results. So, it seems reasonable to you to have those particular rights downgraded (legally of course) to privileges that require special government permissions in order to be exercised. Therefore, the emotional response of fear from the potential for disaster overrides your rational abilities and leads you to make a decision based on emotion rather than logic. Pocket calls that process "common sense".

Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

That's a good effort trying to cite logical fallacies on my part but you should make sure that I have committed a fallacy before claiming that I have. I never stated that a perfect solution existed, only a moral and just solution. I never claimed that the laws should be removed because they are flawed, they should be removed because they are immoral and unjust.

 

[BigRob]

In 1920 I could have walked into a gun store and purchased a fully automatic machine gun, I had that right in 1920. In 2010 I have no such right. That right was stripped from me before I was born because of the actions of those who abused their liberty. I never got my day in court, I never had the opportunity to face my accuser, I never got a chance to defend myself against the charges that my owning an MG posed a "reasonable threat", I simply had my right stripped away without due process.

Under our system of government, the Courts are the place where disputes are to be taken. The parties in the dispute (in the case you mention, the dispute would be the sale of automatic weapons) had their due process and either won or lost based on the merits of their argument. These decisions establish a legal precedent... you don't get to claim that your right to due process was violated and legal precedent is invalid because it was not you personally that was a part of the case. That argument would go nowhere in court.

The only limit necessary on rights is banning individuals from violating the rights of others in the exercise of their own rights. In the event that a particular individual uses his liberty to violate the rights of another, then it is that individual - and only that individual - who should lose his rights and liberties. To use the actions of some as reason to take away, or limit, the rights of everyone else out of fear they too may abuse the same liberties is, as my sig states, an unjust and unwise jealousy, it is not the workings of a moral and just system.

"Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained." - George Washington

If rights can be limited, then they are not unalienable, since you can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. As it appears we agree, the Courts are where these rights are limited or not limited...

For a self-governing people, how those rights are to be limited must be done in accordance with the system of government established.. (ie through Congress, and more importantly the Courts to see if that law is Constitutional)

It would seem you view gun rights like a pile of sticks. Pieces can be broken off, individual sticks can be removed, even by the handful, but so long as there is the smallest splinter of wood left on the "pile", then you consider the right to be in tact.

In the event that government banned all firearms except for single shot, bolt action, 22. calibre rifles, would you say that no one had been stripped of their right since it was still legal to own that one particular firearm? How about the government lifting the bans on all firearms but saying that anyone who wished to purchase or own one had to obtain a license from the state?

Keep in mind that if you require permission from the government to exercise a right, then it is not a right at all, it is a privilege. So while our actual rights are abolished and become privileges that are subject to the whims of the state, you may think that the right has not been stripped but it has. The right still exists, rights cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be recognized or ignored. In the case of gun rights, they have been legally obliterated and replaced with gun privileges that are subject to permission from the state in order to be exercised.

An underlying theme in the Declaration of Independence is that we have the unalienable right to the be sefl-governing. Your unalienable rights do little good for anyone if there is no society or structure of government in place to protect and oversee those rights. How then those rights get limited is at the discretion of a self-governing people through the legal mechanisms put in place.

We obviously have a different concept of rights. While it's not a perfect analogy, the easiest way to differentiate between what is, and what is not, a right is to think about whether or not you could exercise that right while alone on a desert island. Freedom of speech, check, freedom of religion, check, right to bear arms, check... the "right" to security? Exactly how would such a right be exercised? Not even you can eliminate all threats to your own personal safety, so it is absurd to think such an impossible task should be an obligation placed on others.

The 9th Amendment tells me that:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Coupled with the 10th Amendment that states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given this, there are other rights retained by the people, which can be legally defined by the states...correct? Since California says I have that right, why don't I? Are you arguing that I don't because it is not a natural right, but rather a legal right?

That is correct, it only makes it legal, it does not make it right, it does not make the decision moral, ethical, or just.

Which only makes it "legal"...

Rights that have no legal bearing in an organized society may be rights, but become irrelevant in practice.

Because the actions of people who died before I was born have been determined to be reason enough to strip me of the rights they abused out of fear that I too may abuse the same right.

No, it has been limited because a self-governing society acted in accordance with their legal frameworks to place limits on your rights.

That is precisely what I said...

Then a law banning the sale of certain weapons is legal, and as part of our self-governing society you have a responsibility to follow it.

Your argument is fallacious because your primary premises are appeals to consequence and appeal to fear, it is based on using "what if..." and worst case scenarios. These are the premises that you offer in support of your conclusion but the premises themselves are logical fallacies.

A point which does not negate the argument from fallacy position you are advocating.

The premise that 'rights have limits' is one that I agree with, it serves as a premise along side the premise that people do not have the right to violate the rights of others, thus leading to the conclusion that the only limit on rights should be one that makes it illegal to violate the rights of others:

Premise 1: Rights have limits
Premise 2: No right to violate rights
Conclusion: Rights are limited to not violating the rights of others.

Now let's look at yours:

Premise 1: Rights have limits
Premise 2: Appeal to fear
Premise 3: Appeal to consequence
Conclusion: Any limit placed on a right is justifiable when based on the fear of a consequence.

I would say mine is more along the lines of this:

Premise 1: Rights have limits
Premise 2: Since rights have limits, they are not unalienable
Premise 3: How those rights are limited must be undertaken through the proper channels spelled out by a self-governing society.
Conclusion: Because rights are not unalienable by virtue of their ability to be limited, those limitations must be overseen by the legal framework established by a self-governing people.

So far, everyone that has opposed my position has used fear as their rationale for holding their contrary position. Can you make an argument for your position that is not based on these emotional fallacies?

Everything is a fallacy ultimately.... You can just as easily argue that this whole argument is an "Appeal to Law" (or Authority I suppose) fallacy, but at the same time, you cannot just point out a fallacy and use that as "evidence" that a conclusion is wrong.. that is another fallacy, as I pointed out.

In short, you do not trust everyone having the freedom to exercise certain rights, especially those rights with the potential to cause horrific results. So, it seems reasonable to you to have those particular rights downgraded (legally of course) to privileges that require special government permissions in order to be exercised. Therefore, the emotional response of fear from the potential for disaster overrides your rational abilities and leads you to make a decision based on emotion rather than logic. Pocket calls that process "common sense".

It sounds like this is our biggest point of disagreement. I say that rights not protected or overseen by a government of some form are more or less irrelevant in practice, and you seem to argue that rights exist and are meaningful with or without an organized society to enjoy then in.

That's a good effort trying to cite logical fallacies on my part but you should make sure that I have committed a fallacy before claiming that I have. I never stated that a perfect solution existed, only a moral and just solution. I never claimed that the laws should be removed because they are flawed, they should be removed because they are immoral and unjust.

Hah, I thought you would get a kick out of that. Putting that aside, "immoral" and "unjust" seems to be getting back into another entirely subjective area. What is immoral for me might not be for you etc. If limited rights is immoral and unjust, why did the Founders establish a legal framework in which they could be limited?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In 1920 I could have walked into a gun store and purchased a fully automatic machine gun, I had that right in 1920. In 2010 I have no such right. That right was stripped from me before I was born because of the actions of those who abused their liberty. I never got my day in court, I never had the opportunity to face my accuser, I never got a chance to defend myself against the charges that my owning an MG posed a "reasonable threat", I simply had my right stripped away without due process.

yea, had to wait all the way till 1934 before they banned them...though I am sure in 1920 it was a pressing issue for them when it came to laws. Being that the Gun that caused the ban for the most part, the Thompson, was not made until 1919...

And yes, from now on, all laws must be made per person...
You know, kidnapping was made against the law, well before I ever got my day in court, and I had my right to kidnap taken before I got my day in court....Fact is people made your case before you...courts shot it down...others have tried since then...courts said no...your free to take up the courts at any time...but untill you win...we will just have to go by what they have ruled....for 80 plus years.