A gun is a tool....
- Thread starter muleshoe
- Start date
Guy B. Meredith
New member
I don't stand on the 2nd Amendment as the reason I can have a gun. The fact that I use it in a way that endangers no one and gives me recreational enjoyment is sufficient. Nothing should be taken away without a valid reason--there is no need to find a reason for having something.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
GAG and RETCH - Guy.
Unless you understand that the 2nd Amend. guarantees the right to have an instrument of lethal force - you don't understand at all.
No other sporting instrument or tool has the easy potential to hurt folks as the gun does.
Sure, you can make a bomb from propane but propane is not designed as a weapon.
Guns are!! So if guns were only used for sport - they are inherently too dangerous.
Go play ping pong.
When you say things like this, you don't understand anything. The 2nd amend. wasn't considered and put in the Bill of Rights so
you can enjoy yourself.
I can make a valid case for banning guns if you just make the recreational argument.
Damn, rant, rave %)$*%)#*#_%$_)%
Unless you understand that the 2nd Amend. guarantees the right to have an instrument of lethal force - you don't understand at all.
No other sporting instrument or tool has the easy potential to hurt folks as the gun does.
Sure, you can make a bomb from propane but propane is not designed as a weapon.
Guns are!! So if guns were only used for sport - they are inherently too dangerous.
Go play ping pong.
When you say things like this, you don't understand anything. The 2nd amend. wasn't considered and put in the Bill of Rights so
you can enjoy yourself.
I can make a valid case for banning guns if you just make the recreational argument.
Damn, rant, rave %)$*%)#*#_%$_)%
Guy B. Meredith
New member
As an American, there is no reason to prohibit anything that does not cause harm to others through criminal intent or negligence. My guns are under my direct control or locked up.
As an American I have an inherent right to anything I want that does not harm people. The 2nd Amendment is a double check on maintaining the freedom because governments don't always understand freedom or fairness.
[This message has been edited by Guy B. Meredith (edited March 25, 2000).]
As an American I have an inherent right to anything I want that does not harm people. The 2nd Amendment is a double check on maintaining the freedom because governments don't always understand freedom or fairness.
[This message has been edited by Guy B. Meredith (edited March 25, 2000).]
My response to the "Guns are only made to kill" statement is to ask if they would want our military or police to have guns that pops out a little flag that says "BANG!". If it's a known anti, I preface that with "DAMN STRAIGHT!".
Lots of flabbergasted looks and some back-pedaling. They apparently are used to the defensive foot-shuffling "guns are a tool", etc. they usually hear.
I then ask if THEY would want to defend themselves that way. More backpedaling, which then descends into the tar-pit
logic of "some are more equal than others", and I usually end up with "Then why don't you trust me?". Once you get 'em into the "Well, I don't mean that YOU would kill", the whole thing comes apart.
Sometimes attack is the Best Defense.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
Lots of flabbergasted looks and some back-pedaling. They apparently are used to the defensive foot-shuffling "guns are a tool", etc. they usually hear.
I then ask if THEY would want to defend themselves that way. More backpedaling, which then descends into the tar-pit
logic of "some are more equal than others", and I usually end up with "Then why don't you trust me?". Once you get 'em into the "Well, I don't mean that YOU would kill", the whole thing comes apart.
Sometimes attack is the Best Defense.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
Ray VanderLinden
New member
Ask them If they want to ban swords, before guns. Most will say no "guns are more dangerous.
Maybe but Swords really were made for killing People, they are worthless for nearly any other Endevor.
The only good defense agains a man with a sword is a gun.
Maybe but Swords really were made for killing People, they are worthless for nearly any other Endevor.
The only good defense agains a man with a sword is a gun.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
"Inherent rights" is not the Constitution, dude.
If you want to argue a libertarian approach - great. But that doesn't help in this battle.
The tool argument / sport argument is a chicken crap covered road to defeat.
If you want to argue a libertarian approach - great. But that doesn't help in this battle.
The tool argument / sport argument is a chicken crap covered road to defeat.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
As an American I have an inherent right to anything I want that does not harm people.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Well - I don't see this as a constitutional defense for the RKBA on the basis of enjoying yourself at a sport.
Interesting theory - probably would support a lot of fun things we can't do now.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Well - I don't see this as a constitutional defense for the RKBA on the basis of enjoying yourself at a sport.
Interesting theory - probably would support a lot of fun things we can't do now.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Another inherent rights problem.
We can argue against registration and photo ID
based on the 2nd Amend.
If you merely argue that you have the right to do things that do not harm others (a dangerous argument easily countered by the nature of guns) - what is the counter argument to immediate registration?
We get hunting licenses and SUV licenses and the like. Let's register all those nonharmful guns.
Also, the argument fails as guns are dangerous and the state can argue that such items can be controlled. That you are a safe unit is a specious argument given that guns are used for evil in the country.
It is only our countervailing right to have them for the good of the nation, the purpose of the 2nd, that does it.
If your guns are for enjoyment and since you can keep them safely - what is wrong with the
state keeping them safe at the gun club for you as happens in some places?
Not everyone can keep them safe so the state acts for the overall good and still lets you play with them.
No - the tool argument and the 9th argument
are trivial.
I stand by what I say that the tool argument
is a spineless concession and the 9th doesn't cut it.
If you talk to folks outside of the choir, they regard the tool argument as ridiculous.
It is pitiful whine on our parts.
More coffee!!
We can argue against registration and photo ID
based on the 2nd Amend.
If you merely argue that you have the right to do things that do not harm others (a dangerous argument easily countered by the nature of guns) - what is the counter argument to immediate registration?
We get hunting licenses and SUV licenses and the like. Let's register all those nonharmful guns.
Also, the argument fails as guns are dangerous and the state can argue that such items can be controlled. That you are a safe unit is a specious argument given that guns are used for evil in the country.
It is only our countervailing right to have them for the good of the nation, the purpose of the 2nd, that does it.
If your guns are for enjoyment and since you can keep them safely - what is wrong with the
state keeping them safe at the gun club for you as happens in some places?
Not everyone can keep them safe so the state acts for the overall good and still lets you play with them.
No - the tool argument and the 9th argument
are trivial.
I stand by what I say that the tool argument
is a spineless concession and the 9th doesn't cut it.
If you talk to folks outside of the choir, they regard the tool argument as ridiculous.
It is pitiful whine on our parts.
More coffee!!
Glen,
The enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights are not our only rights. We have "Prenumbral" rights, and I have to say, I had that RKBA whether or not the US Constitution says I had it.
Now, that said, isn't it nice that that particular right is enumerated?
It's disingenius to try to say that my ugly old Kel Tek P-11 is a "Sport" pistol. With its 3" barrel and its short sight radius and it plasic frame and its hard DAO trigger pull, it would be a horrible hunting pistol, and no better as a target pistol. But I carry this little 9mm as a deterrent against threats to mine or my family's life or limb. How would I use it, should it came to that? Well, I'd be shooting it for the center of mass of him who would do me or mine harm. This is considered lethal force.
I carry that "tool" or "instrument" in anticipation that, in the highly unlikely instance that I should need it, I would have the most effective little killing device I can easily carry. I DO NOT WANT to kill! Don't WANNA DO IT! Likewise do I never want to have to use a firehose on a fire at work, or a fire extinguisher on a fire at my house, nor even the jack and the flares in my truckbox for a flat on the side of the road. All of these items are emergency equipment that I'd just as soon NEVER use for real, as long as I live. But I know how, and reaquaint myself periodically with the proper use of each. To say that I didn't want to have a fire extinguisher with me because I don't like the idea of having to put out a fire in my house would be sort of absurd, wouldn't it?
[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited March 26, 2000).]
The enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights are not our only rights. We have "Prenumbral" rights, and I have to say, I had that RKBA whether or not the US Constitution says I had it.
Now, that said, isn't it nice that that particular right is enumerated?
It's disingenius to try to say that my ugly old Kel Tek P-11 is a "Sport" pistol. With its 3" barrel and its short sight radius and it plasic frame and its hard DAO trigger pull, it would be a horrible hunting pistol, and no better as a target pistol. But I carry this little 9mm as a deterrent against threats to mine or my family's life or limb. How would I use it, should it came to that? Well, I'd be shooting it for the center of mass of him who would do me or mine harm. This is considered lethal force.
I carry that "tool" or "instrument" in anticipation that, in the highly unlikely instance that I should need it, I would have the most effective little killing device I can easily carry. I DO NOT WANT to kill! Don't WANNA DO IT! Likewise do I never want to have to use a firehose on a fire at work, or a fire extinguisher on a fire at my house, nor even the jack and the flares in my truckbox for a flat on the side of the road. All of these items are emergency equipment that I'd just as soon NEVER use for real, as long as I live. But I know how, and reaquaint myself periodically with the proper use of each. To say that I didn't want to have a fire extinguisher with me because I don't like the idea of having to put out a fire in my house would be sort of absurd, wouldn't it?
[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited March 26, 2000).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I agree with your preventive analogy.
I disagree with those who said a gun is just an instrument that throws little pellets of metal without talking to the intent of that action.
No one who is antigun or undecided thinks this makes any sense. That is one point.
We must deal with that we want to possess guns for their potentially lethal effects and that is what the RKBA is about. Not sports.
I think I'll drop the enumerated rights arguments - it is won't do us any good in a legal battle or convincing people.
My point was that the neutral tool analogy is
a flop.
I disagree with those who said a gun is just an instrument that throws little pellets of metal without talking to the intent of that action.
No one who is antigun or undecided thinks this makes any sense. That is one point.
We must deal with that we want to possess guns for their potentially lethal effects and that is what the RKBA is about. Not sports.
I think I'll drop the enumerated rights arguments - it is won't do us any good in a legal battle or convincing people.
My point was that the neutral tool analogy is
a flop.
Glenn,
I share your sentiments. I, like you, have run into many people who say that the only thing a gun is good for is killing or severely injuring someone. I always reply that they are absolutely correct, and that said killing or wounding is not always a bad thing. I then ask them if someone were assaulting them and attempting to end their life, would they prefer that I intervene with my firearm to save them, or would they rather me just stand and watch. That is usually followed by a long period of silence.
I also understand the real basis for the 2nd amendment, and that it is indisputably an individual right, not a collective one. And yes, it bothers me as well when people do not stand up for it based on its true purpose.
I share your sentiments. I, like you, have run into many people who say that the only thing a gun is good for is killing or severely injuring someone. I always reply that they are absolutely correct, and that said killing or wounding is not always a bad thing. I then ask them if someone were assaulting them and attempting to end their life, would they prefer that I intervene with my firearm to save them, or would they rather me just stand and watch. That is usually followed by a long period of silence.
I also understand the real basis for the 2nd amendment, and that it is indisputably an individual right, not a collective one. And yes, it bothers me as well when people do not stand up for it based on its true purpose.