Would you support mandatory training if...

[applesanity]

The nuclear argument is usually a strawman thrown out by antis,

Wait, wait, didn't I just talk about this, very specifically? I said it was a logical extreme.

Argument: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As in no compromise, no provisions, no exclusions.

Logical extreme: Well, should we stop infringing upon the right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

Strawman: Well should we infringe on the right of violent ex-cons to own guns?

A logical extreme is when you take every possible answer to an argument until you find one that's rediculous, but is still fitting answer. A strawman argument is a sham, when you totally change the point of interest to put forth an irrelevant premise to back up a refutable claim. I encourage you to know the difference.

You could have said something like, "well you see, every nation knows how to make a machine gun, but the technology involved in making a Trident II SLBM is classified, and for a reason - if you make them available for public distribution you would serously jeapordize national security."

So, I beat you to the argument you should have used.

A "no compromise, no provisions, no exclusions" stance won't cut it anymore. Not that it ever did. The first amendment doesn't protect slander or libel.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Wait, wait, didn't I just talk about this, very specifically? I said it was a logical extreme.

Argument: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As in no compromise, no provisions, no exclusions.

Logical extreme: Well, should we stop infringing upon the right to keep and bear nuclear arms?

Strawman: Well should we infringe on the right of violent ex-cons to own guns?

A logical extreme is when you take every possible answer to an argument until you find one that's rediculous, but is still fitting answer. A strawman argument is a sham, when you totally change the point of interest to put forth an irrelevant premise to back up a refutable claim. I encourage you to know the difference.

You could have said something like, "well you see, every nation knows how to make a machine gun, but the technology involved in making a Trident II SLBM is classified, and for a reason - if you make them available for public distribution you would serously jeapordize national security."

So, I beat you to the argument you should have used.

Well, in fairness to him I think nuclear weapons do fit into a category of "fundamentally different" that traditional arms that the founding fathers could not have foreseen. He's got a point there.

Of course, I think the M1 tank, and to a lesser extent even the M2 machine gun also constitute a class of weapons the forefathers probably couldn't have foreseen, either. Somewhere between those and the muzzle-loading pistol there exists a line separating the kinds of weapons that do fit within the forefathers' intent, and those that don't. Probably not even a fine line...probably a big ol' fuzzy one.

Personally, I'd say that the Abrams or Paladin weapons systems are probably nearly as effective as nuclear weapons as a logical extreme to joab's argument...I think those are "arms" of a nature that the framers would not have imagined being sold unrestricted to private citizens, yet aren't "fundamentally" different from traditional weapons (in the same way nuclear weapons are).

But joab thinks those are reasonable to sell unrestricted. At which point his position is more or less consistent. I'd say it''s a bit extreme...and probably puts him in the minority even among those who support the second amendment. But then we venture into "appeal to popularity", which isn't exactly logically valid. So while I can say I disagree I don't know that there's any way to declare his stance objectively wrong.

But note that I don't consider my stance to be objectively wrong, either.

A "no compromise, no provisions, no exclusions" stance won't cut it anymore. Not that it ever did. The first amendment doesn't protect slander or libel.

Continuing in my longstanding tradition of arguing both sides, libel and slander aren't really analogous here. Pornography or obscenity more so, but still not entirely. Though those two are good points to bring up anytime somebody throws out the idea of a broad and literal interpretation of an amendment.

Slander and libel don't count because those two are crimes with victims that, IIRC, predate the Constitution in common law.

 

[applesanity]

traditional arms that the founding fathers could not have foreseen

I personally never bought into the technology argument. The founding fathers had cannons and certainly didn't live in high-rises. The founders didn't have online message forums.

Their cannons could have taken out the log cabins of their day. They didn't ban cannons, to the best of my knowledge. Today, we need depleted uranium to penetrate reinforced concrete. Their soldiers wore linens; ours wear kevlar and ceramic plates. A modern time needs modern weapons, that's all.

I don't think an Abrams tank is too far fetched. "hey why don't we attach one of our cannons to a carriage, then plate it with iron to protect its occupants (...ironsides?), and find some sort of appropriate propulsion"

The problem with an ICBM is that you don't have to be within or near America's borders to use it. Which makes it impossible to regulate or punish, domestically. Which means you really don't want them to be available for the public.

But I think the argument that will trump all is $$$. Plus a background check.

"Hey bob, price check on a Tomahawk missile? I can't seem to find the bar code anywhere.... Okay, so will that be paper or plastic?"

"Sir, you realize that you also need to buy the appropriate launching silo and _____ and _____ before you can even activate it? Batteries sold separarely."

are crimes with victims that, IIRC, predate the Constitution in common law.

Okay you got me there. Thanks for making me look bad.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Okay you got me there. Thanks for making me look bad.

Sorry, man. Like I said, I like to assign the same standards to all sides. Actually, I don't even like to always think of things in terms of "sides," as it encourages polarized thinking.

Besides, you weren't far off anyway.

I don't think an Abrams tank is too far fetched. "hey why don't we attach one of our cannons to a carriage, then plate it with iron to protect its occupants (...ironsides?), and find some sort of appropriate propulsion"

Oh, I think it's a little more than that...then again, maybe it's just because I have a soft spot for them. I spent a couple years on a tank crew, and oh how I miss them.

I just think that arms have progressed to a point where their destructive power is on an entirely different plane than what was possible when the Constitution was written.

No, I don't think this applies to things like semi-automatic weapons. Yes, I realize that anti-gun advocates sometimes (heck, often) apply it to them. But I think the argument in general holds some validity and that simply ignoring it or dismissing (by pointing at a quasi-vague sentence written a couple hundred years back, and assuming every interpretation and assumption you apply to it is a universal truth) it isn't nearly as effective as instead countering it.

Especially since a majority of the people (who vote our lawmakers into office) and a large number of judges (who are going to determine what that old sentence actually means, and whether those lawmakers' laws are enforceable) don't seem to think it's so easily dismissed.

 

[joab]

so that later the whole "show me where I said that!" game can be played.

No the "show me game" is played to counter the twisty game
And yes I did

This cannot be done with a nuclear weapon or any other bomb or weapon capable of great destruction

The only thing left up to discussion is my opinion of great destruction or indiscriminate loss of life.

One right cannot usurp another.
Your right to defense of self and community cannot trump the rights of others or other communities

My natural rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not infringed if my pursuit of happiness involves the deprivation of life or liberty of others that I am not allowed to engage in.

My first amendment rights are not violated if I am not allowed to practice a religion that requires human sacrifice in order to practice it

My right of freedom of expression would not be infringed if I were arrested for using infrared cameras to film my neighbors daughter taking a shower and then presenting it on the internet as art

My right to keep and bear arms is not infringed if I am not allowed to have weapons which the mere possession of constitutes and real danger to the lives of innocents.

I can drive a tank, use a grenade, RPG, machine gun or .50 BMG without even remotely endangering any living thing. I can not in any stretch of the imagination do that with any type of nuclear device be it tactical conventional, suitcase or dirty.
The mere possession of the material necessary to create a nuke presents a real danger to any area that I have that material.

It has been said many times that my freedom of speech dopes not allow me to yell fire in a crowded theater. Have my first amendment rights been violated if I am arrested for that? No
Because I would not be arrested for yelling fire I would be arrested for creating a life threatening situation with the very real possibility of endangering the lives of innocents, thereby violating their natural rights.

I'll point out that the founding fathers didn't necessarily have a unified intent anyway

I'll give you that, but I disagree with the dissenters

ZING!

Much better
Short, sweet, slightly unexpected.
Old one liner but still amusing

Wait, wait, didn't I just talk about this, very specifically? I said it was a logical extreme.

Yeah and I rejected that assessment

Personally, I'd say that the Abrams or Paladin weapons systems are probably nearly as effective as nuclear weapons as a logical extreme to joab's argument

Actually no they would not have been, because those weapons as I have stated about the tanks, can be used without endangering any living thing much less innocent humans
Therefore your argument that any infringement would be an infringement therefore I support infringement would have gone nowhere

But joab thinks those are reasonable to sell unrestricted. At which point his position is more or less consistent. I'd say it''s a bit extreme.

We cannot negotiate a compromise when we merely ask for what we think the other side will give us anyway.
I was recently sued over my dog biting a 10 year old kid
Among the things asked for , along with medical bills, were compensation for lost wages, compensation l for permanent disability and scarring and mental trauma causing a fear of dogs.
The kid never worked or earned a wage, there was no disability or scarring and his family owns three pitbulls
If they had simply asked for medical bills that is the most they would have gotten and under Florida law probably only half of that $500. But with their ploy they stood to get in excess of $15,000 which of course would have forced me into a compromise of much more than the $500 medical bills.

Our fight must be fought the same way
If we asked for the moon we may be allowed to look at it twice a month.

If we suggest passing a test to be permitted for the privilege of looking at the moon which could only be taken by certain qualifying individuals they will deny that the moon even exist without the will of the people

I personally never bought into the technology argument.

For the constitution to work we must except that the founders were a highly intelligent if not brilliant body of men.
For them not to have foreseen advancements in technology would contradict this

Basic rights are basic rights
If new technology infringes on the well defined basic rights of innocent parties then it must be banned or regulated regardless of what amendment has precedence over that violation. If the mere existence, ownership, or use of that technology does not infringe on the life liberty or pursuit of happiness of innocent parties then it should not be

 

[joab]

The nuclear argument is usually a strawman thrown out by antis, that you use it to support and encourage further infringement is very telling

I should have explained this earlier
The comment was not meant to imply that you are an anti or troll
Merely to point out that their arguments are now entering the mindset, and being accepted as fact, of gunowners instead of being refuted as the logical fallacies that they are
__________________

 

[FirstFreedom]

You go joab - I'm with ya in spirit, man! Capitulative IS a word!

 

[joab]

Capitulative IS a word

Firefox spellchecker sucks

If they had simply asked for medical bills that is the most they would have gotten and under Florida law probably only half of that $500. But with their ploy they stood to get in excess of $15,000 which of course would have forced me into a compromise of much more than the $500 medical bills.

Should have included this part
I stood my ground and basically told them to pound sand, the brat should not have opened my gate and I wouldn't compromise
The lawsuit was apparently dropped and I pay a $200 higher premium to my new insurance company, after the old one dropped me,until the dog dies.
I could have gotten insurance $100 cheaper than the company I had if I got rid of the dog, but you guessed it
I wouldn't compromise or deal with bigots, both are dangerous habits to get into

 

[DonR101395]

no.

 

[2Seventy]

Quote:
The 1st Amendment is a guarantee EVERYWHERE in the US. The 2nd should be no different. This patchwork of laws from state to state, county to county, or city to city is a blatant violation.

The first amendment (at least in the same literal and broad interpretation you're suggesting for the second) is not a guarantee everywhere in the US. Also, what restrictions there are on it are not consistent between states, cities, or counties either (for example, see obscenity or pornography related laws).

You're right. I wonder what the authors would think about these multiple interpretations and how these documents are being interpreted today?

2Seventy

 

[JuanCarlos]

You're right. I wonder what the authors would think about these multiple interpretations and how these documents are being interpreted today?

2Seventy

Well, I'm wondering when the first obscenity laws were passed at the state level. I'm seeing federal-level laws regarding obscenity going back to the mid-1800's or so, but I'd not be surprised if there were similar laws at the state level before that...possibly within their lifetimes. In which case I'd probably wonder what they did think about it.

 

[stephpd]

classes

I will be taking a class next month for a ccw in DE. I know it's mandatory for DE but is also for PA and NJ but no resaprosity. Don't ask me why but there doen't seem to be resaprosity between any of these states.

Must be the liberal northeast although PA recently was added to the 'shall issue' list of states but not for resaprocity. Maybe just a mattter of time for these laws to be added to PA. Here in DE the NRA doesn't even offer any classes. Have to go to PA.

 

[Double J]

" Mandatory" scares me. And a nationwide ID scares me. How about a program like the Swiss have? Turn 18, go into training, then take your weapon home with you.

 

[BreacherUp!]

I believe mandatory classes for a CCW is a good thing. Just look at how many questions abound on this very forum. Questions about "can I shoot when..," "can I carry in such and such place..," "if I drew my weapon, what legal ramifications..," etc. Besides the fact that learning to shoot from concealed carry in a DF encounter takes some training.
Countless times, I have read responses on this and other forums regarding course of action and thanked God that individuals like that were not roaming the streets armed.
Saying that these classes should be up to the individual would be great if everyone took carrying concealed serioulsy. But, how many people that actually have weapons (CCW or otherwise) train with them and fully understand the law. Officers get in trouble everyday for infractions regarding DF. And they are trained way more than the average American.

 

[Trip20]

Before I'd consider mandated training, I would need someone to provide me evidence that there is a staid public safety crisis instigated by untrained law abiding individuals carrying concealed and unconcealed firearms.

Not a few isolated morons... I'm talkin' a real, tangible, public safety concern.

And once that evidence did not surface, as is always the case, I'd then label suggested legislation "feel good legislation" and deride anyone in favor of the same.

I'd also take issue with the credulity of someone who believes anti gunners would really “back off” in any sense, once we took this tiny and irrelevant argument from their bag of tricks by agreeing to a compulsory training requirement.

Just as some get tired of slippery slope arguments… others get tired of those with slippery slope blindness. The slope is real. There is no abating the tenacity of those who want the total abolition of firearm ownership.

So, nope. I wouldn’t support anything even close to mandatory training, even if it got us nationwide CCW.