Gun story not in the news

by Deputy Dog 49 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  leavingwt

  Yes, there are extremists in every group of people.

  Keyser,

  I would not label the four dissenting Justices on the Supreme Court as "extremists". They did, however, fail to side with those who would protect an individual right to own firearms.

  Let me say this: It is not probable or even likely that Americans will ever be required to surrender their firearms. Nor will most comply, if they're ordered to do so. So, if your point is that our firearms are not in jeopardy, I would mostly agree with you.

  -LWT
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Home invasions are unheard of in Switzerland.

  They have a better model than ours, in some respects.

  Switzerland has some of the world's lowest crime rates.

  Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

  The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

  This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

  Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

  Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

  Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
• 

  keyser soze

  So, if your point is that our firearms are not in jeopardy, I would mostly agree with you.

  My point was simply that the majority of people in favor of gun control don't desire to disarm private citizens altogether. I think this is right-wing paranoia.
• 

  leavingwt

  Keyser,

  Agreed. There is much paranoia.

  Surely, though, you will agree that the minority who do want to disarm private citizens should be heartened by the fact that four Supreme Court Justices agreed with them.

  So, can we agree that there both paranoia and significant/legitimate opposition to private firearm ownership?

  -LWT
• 

  keyser soze

  Surely, though, you will agree that the minority who do want to disarm private citizens should be heartened by the fact that four Supreme Court Justices agreed with them.

  I don't think the justices interpreting the Constitution as it's actually written means that they wish to disarm private citizens. Arguing that a right isn't guaranteed doesn't mean they are trying to take our guns away altogether. That's a pretty big leap in logic.
• 

  leavingwt

  Keyser,

  Gotcha. Thank you.

  -LWT
• 

  Deputy Dog

  My point was simply that the majority of people in favor of gun control don't desire to disarm private citizens altogether. I think this is right-wing paranoia.

  You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in NJ
• 

  TD

  Maybe this is a digression, but I would argue on linguistic grounds that the Steven's dissent is not a purer reading of the Constitution than the majority opinion.

  If I were to say,

  "A well regulated public reading program being necessary to the literacy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed"

  ....I think it would be a causational fallacy to assert that possession of books could therefore legitimately be restricted to only under the auspices of a public library or some other collective institution. In this example, the 'need' is not the basis of the 'right' because there is not a clear, linear cause and effect linguistic link between the two clauses. A need is expressed; a right is enumerated that helps to satsify that need and that is the only connection between them.

  The (intentional) parallel to the Second Amendment should be obvious. The 'necessity' of a well regulated militia was expressed; a right to keep and bear arms was enumerated. Michael Bellesiles discredited theory and academic dishonesty notwithstanding, individual citizens in colonial America were free as individuals to provided their own firearms for such an endeavor and often did. Conversely, a citizenry who did not and could not individually own firearms would not have been able to form a militia, at least as we understand colonial militias to have historically existed.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  That was fantastic, TD.
• 

  leavingwt

  TD,

  I like the Penn & Teller show on the topic. (It's NSFW, obviously.)

  http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/60509/detail/

  -LWT