The Unlimited Right to Bear Arms

[Brian Pfleuger]

Since the assertion that,

Quote:
... the libel and slander comparisons are frequently made and please PLEASE recognize they are not correct because they are post harm...

...does not rest on a claim of expertise,

The particular claim of expertise was made previously, in post #9:

Frank I am not wrong. I dealt directly with First amendment issue professionally for years.

It is an appeal to authority, essentially, and that appeal should be verified.

 

[zukiphile]

The particular claim of expertise was made previously, in post #9:

Yet, that is not the text to which Frank responds.

Frank I am not wrong. I dealt directly with First amendment issue professionally for years.

It is an appeal to authority, essentially, and that appeal should be verified.

I agree that it is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. Verifying the basis of a fallacious argument makes it neither more nor less fallacious.

There appears to be sufficient substance for discussion here without making the arguments personal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but even my example of a prior restraint on speech is quite a bit more narrow than the sorts of restraint we see on rights pertaining to the Second Amendment...

The scope of prior restraint permissible in a First Amendment context has been hashed out by the courts over a long period in many cases. Second Amendment jurisprudence post Heller/McDonald is still in its infancy, and the scope of permissible prior restraint in connection with rights protected by the Second Amendment will need to be worked out by the courts over time.

 

[JimDandy]

I saw this and sent the author an email.

He is right to compare voting and the RKBA. He's wrong to imply one is significantly more or less "unlimited" than the other as pretty much the same things strip both rights. And he goes on to be more wrong about more things.

 

[zukiphile]

He is right to compare voting and the RKBA. He's wrong to imply one is significantly more or less "unlimited" than the other as pretty much the same things strip both rights.

Our legal and political landscape might differ considerably if one's right to vote could be suspended or revoked for what is broadly termed "domestic violence" and if one's choices in voting were limited to a state approved list.

Yet, one cannot completely deny the appeal of banning high-capacity assault politicians.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I agree that it is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. Verifying the basis of a fallacious argument makes it neither more nor less fallacious.

There appears to be sufficient substance for discussion here without making the arguments personal.

I don't understand that argument. An appeal to authority doesn't automatically make an argument fallacious. In fact, verifying the authority could make the argument believable, if not proven absolutely true.

If someone says to me "That cloud right there means that it's probably going to rain soon."

and I respond with "How do you know?"

and they say "I've been studying clouds professionally for years"

my most likely response is "Oh, so you're a meteorologist?"

If they say "Yes, I am. I work at WXYZ and got my degree from Berkeley in 1985, I've written extensively about cloud formation in peer reviewed journals."

He has appealed to authority and given me reason to believe that he knows what he's talking about. Now, certainly I can be a skeptic and think he's just making all this crap up and has no idea what he's talking about but I am likely (and logically) going to give his arguments more weight than if he "Nope, I'm no meteor guy, it looks like a dinosaur. Dinosaur clouds always rain!"

My alternative is to seek out and verify EVERY claim EVERY person makes, because I can not accept their reasonably expert opinions as carrying any weight at all.

I still may not agree with the expert but their so being most certainly should carry some weight.

 

[Anchorblew]

I'm amazed by the responses that my post has elicited. I thank all of you for taking the time to share these responses as I feel that I have learned quite a few things today.

 

[Nathan]

Regulations restricting access to felons and those with violent nature are fine, so long as they're written and applied judiciously. Anything else should be scrutinized very, very closely.

That said, I'm not aware of any civil liberty that runs completely unfettered. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect slander, conspiracy, or copyright infringement. Nor does the 4th render all warrantless searches invalid.

We will never have an unlimited RKBA. Not gonna happen. The trick is to knock out onerous and wrongheaded regulations that abridge the rights of the law-abiding and do no societal good.

...which is pretty much 99% of them.

This is well written logic, although we must be careful with slander...

RKBA is different because there is a clear connection that keeping and bearing arms by citizens is the key to forming militias and maintaining the citizens power over the government. Without arms a group of citizens rising up is just a sit in and the rights of all will be trampled.

The reasons behind this article are too transparent. There is a reasonable gun regulation discussion to be had. It starts at no regulation and the gun guys agree we should not be able to own WMD's as citizens because that gives too much destructive power to a small group. Then the other side gives up all small arms up to RPG. Then we agree crew served weapons like tanks and more powerful are not needed as citizens.

Basically, the gun guy side gave in on the regulations we should have and kept giving for too long. Pretty much every gun law since 1900 should be reviewed and most likely removed from the books.

So, regulation free is not my goal, but reduction on the crap to purposefully make guns, ammo, Accesories expensive and hard to get should be gone.

Remember, these shootings like Aurora, Newtown, etc happen because they can, not because of guns. Japan has had several mass stabbings. I'm sure somewhere will have mass screwdriver'ings next or bombings like Boston. Pick your poisen or get serious about addressing your enemies. Had those fellas in Boston felt like everyone had a gun and was watching them looking for something abnormal, I'll bet dropping off pressure cookers would have been low on their list. As for the guys that helped them....a good public hanging would do wonders!

 

[Beagle45ACP]

Where did Ellis get his data from?

As 2013 began, an astonishing 89% of voters, including 75% of NRA members, were in favor of expanded background checks, and sizable majorities favored a ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons.

I find it hard to believe that 89% of Americans wanted extended background checks. If that were true, that would be one of the most agreed upon ideas in all of American history (seriously, how many times do even 60% of us agree on anything?). Also, "sizable majorities" could one be any more vague in describing a fraction of a group?

Rant over.

 

[Tom Servo]

Beagle, the figure came from a Quinnipiac poll taken from a very small pool of university students. I have never been able to find the actual content of the poll, but one can guess the question was worded something like, "do you support measures to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally incompetent?"

That one poll was extrapolated to imply that it represented the whole of the American public.

 

[Skans]

Once upon a time, long ago when I had some degree of trust for our government, I too believed in "reasonable firearms regulations". But, then I saw how politicians pass stupid and idiotic nonsensical laws like the '86 machinegun ban, '89 import ban, the assault weapon ban, and the most asinine regulations on silencers, SBR's, SBS's, AOW's and Machine Guns by BATFE.

Now, I am for abolishing all firearms regulations as they relate to ownership of guns by any non-incarcerated adult. Yes, I believe all right should be automatically restored after a criminal completes his sentence. If that doesn't work for society, then society can make the sentence longer or execute the criminal.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't understand that argument. An appeal to authority doesn't automatically make an argument fallacious. In fact, verifying the authority could make the argument believable, if not proven absolutely true.

Relying on a fallacy in making an argument does make that argument fallacious.

If someone says to me,

"That cloud right there means that it's probably going to rain soon."

and I respond,

"I agree about what that cloud means, but before I would consider taking your request seriously I would need to know your professional qualifications for your opinions in this regard."

... then I have employed a fallacy that does not even serve any disagreement, but can only serve and irrelevant argument direct did to the man, also a fallacy.


One can employ a fallacious argument and still arrive at the correct or true conclusion. Judging by the accuracy of weather forecasts in my area, I am not confident that an appeal to meteorological credentials is the very best example of an appeal to authority.

It strikes me as more courteous and productive to address the arguments made then to dismiss an argument because it is not accompanied by a more detailed proclamation of credentials.

Beagle, the figure came from a Quinnipiac poll taken from a very small pool of university students. I have never been able to find the actual content of the poll, but one can guess the question was worded something like, "do you support measures to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally incompetent?"

The content of the question and when it is asked are determinative. Some here may recall the post Sandy Hook thread here in which the topic of denial of arms to the mentally ill arose. Quite a few writers, even here and amongst those generally attuned to the rights involved, a sort of reflexive, of course! was the sense of many replies.

 

[Beagle45ACP]

Thanks Tom, I'm fairly certain many other articles posted here have used that same poll, and I've always wondered how in the Hell they got those figures.
Skans, I am also for abolishing all those aforementioned laws. Well, almost all. I'm thinking we should still keep the guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. I mean, seriously, "well, jail didn't work so just take him out back behind the wood shed," doesn't that come off as a little extreme?

 

[Tom Servo]

Quite a few writers, even here and amongst those generally attuned to the rights involved, a sort of reflexive, of course! was the sense of many replies.

Sure. After all, I don't want a violent psychotic to have access to guns. On the other hand, someone shouldn't be barred because they have PTSD, or because they did a stint in rehab two decades ago.

However, the question can be as important as the answers. After all, who doesn't want to protect the children?

 

[zukiphile]

Tom Servo, I just came across a topical illustration of the limits of polling.

In the recent Colorado recall election of legislators who voted in favor of some unpopular firearm restrictions, Quinnipiac conducted the poll.

Colorado voters say 60 - 31 percent that when people don't agree with a legislator, they should wait for reelection, rather than attempt a recall.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...titute/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=1941

The recall was successful.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It strikes me as more courteous and productive to address the arguments made then to dismiss an argument because it is not accompanied by a more detailed proclamation of credentials.

If you say so, brother.

It's all going to end in the same place. If I disagree with the experts opinion he is sooner or later going to make the claim that he knows what he's talking about because he's an expert.

Now, I can demand documentation of the argument, fine, because that's the only step left either way.

Sooner or later, you're either going to have "Is not!", "Is too!", "Is not!", "Is too!" or you're going to have some credentials that at least lend credence to the argument, if not fact.

As I said, when it's a matter of "2+2=4", we can simply address the argument, easily and unarguably as a point of fact. When it's a matter of opinion, one's credentials most certainly have an impact.

On that, there's really no argument. That's why court recognized expert witnesses always begin their testimony by being grilled about their credentials. Two experts might disagree but if the jury has Joe Dinosaur Cloud versus Joe the Nobel Prize Winning Climatologist, who are they going to believe?

 

[zukiphile]

If you say so, brother.

That's one of my favorite philosophies.

It's all going to end in the same place. If I disagree with the experts opinion he is sooner or later going to make the claim that he knows what he's talking about because he's an expert.

Now, I can demand documentation of the argument, fine, because that's the only step left either way.

Sooner or later, you're either going to have "Is not!", "Is too!", "Is not!", "Is too!" or you're going to have some credentials that at least lend credence to the argument, if not fact.

As I said, when it's a matter of "2+2=4", we can simply address the argument, easily and unarguably as a point of fact. When it's a matter of opinion, one's credentials most certainly have an impact.

Frank and TDL were not addressing a matter of opinion.

I do not agree that an argument inevitably breaks down into simple contradiction or an appeal to authority. Where positions are set out in greater detail and in a persuasive manner, advocates often find areas of agreement.

When it's a matter of opinion, one's credentials most certainly have an impact.

On that, there's really no argument. That's why court recognized expert witnesses always begin their testimony by being grilled about their credentials. Two experts might disagree but if the jury has Joe Dinosaur Cloud versus Joe the Nobel Prize Winning Climatologist, who are they going to believe?

The more persuasive.

Testimony as an expert in a court generally will only be permitted where the subject of that testimony "relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by laypersons" or serves to dispel misconceptions amongst the laity.

That does not describe the colloquy between Frank and TDL.

 

[Seeker]

2nd Amendment Limits

I believe that Publius mentioned something in one of his articles explaining the hows and whys of the new Constitution, about the citizens having the right to privately own a frigate (you can find them for sale sometimes at Ballistica Maximus - frigates that is - the Federalist Papers you can pick up at a book store).

 

[Skans]

I mean, seriously, "well, jail didn't work so just take him out back behind the wood shed," doesn't that come off as a little extreme?

No. I simply don't believe in having two types of free citizens - one category with full rights and another category with lesser rights. Either the felon has served his time and completely paid for his crime, or the sentence wasn't severe enough. The way our system is now, its very half-ass. Rights are rights, and free citizens shouldn't suffer just because those in charge are too weak and politically correct to impose punishments severe enough to protect law abiding citizens.

Some will say "when people go to prison, they come out educated criminals, that's why we can't allow them to have guns". First, if they are educated criminals, they will find a way to get a gun, if they want one. Second, why are we permitting this? Gang affiliations, tattoos - all of this stuff should be strictly prohibited in prison under threat of permanent isolation or execution.

 

[FlyFish]

I agree that it is an appeal to authority, a fallacy.

Actually, it is not, and appeal to authority is not, in itself, a fallacy. The fallacy that you're thinking of is "Argument Ad Verecundiam", which is an Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (emphasis added). Bolstering your argument by citing an actual authority on the issue, whether yourself or someone else, is not a fallacy. The fallacy involves citing someone who may be an expert in one field, but not the field at issue.

As an example, let's say you're arguing the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and you claim it to be an individual right, citing the Federalist Papers and perhaps recent SCOTUS opinions. Your opponent responds that Albert Einstein and 10 of the world's most prominent physicists agree (agreed in the case of Einstein, of course) that the 2nd was intended to apply only to militias. You're on solid ground, because the framers and SCOTUS justices (arguably, in some cases, perhaps) are in fact experts on the issue. Your opponent has committed an argument ad verecundiam by appealing to authorities in a different field.

Reference: Copi, I.M and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to Logic, 10th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 714 p.