Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.

Wet t-shirts don't burn.

[Hippikos]

The same way drugs make a country more healthy.

Totally incomparable. In fact it's a grotesk absurdity. Guns do not heal, do not reconcile, do not transport people, do not educate poeple, they are exclusively to kill living creatures, not a single other purpose, no matter what other fancy Kant quote you use.

it's the motivations and intents of the people using them.

That's in fact where the problem lies. It's not about guns itself. A vicious circle, where only violence can solve the problems, as it seems. People buy guns, because others have guns and may use it against you.

Again, do you think guns made the US safer?

[Undertoad]

Guns are part of the mix that keeps the US, in personality, a strong, rugged individualist; prepared to address any particular shit that hits the fan, unwilling to automatically cede control to authority, and not falling for the polite fantasy that life can be made perfectly safe.

Addressing problems without calling for help; admitting that we are, in the end, in charge of our own safety and thus our own lives; unwilling to automatically accept any new order thrust upon us. Willing, if need be, to give the federal revenooer an assload of buckshot to keep him off our property. (historical ref: during alcohol prohibition, people fought feds to keep their bathtub distillers running.)

It is this personality that has kept the US entrepreneurial, dynamic, and powerful.

Safe? Most definitely. Safer? Subject to definition. I don't believe I could walk through North Philly at midnight without being in danger. Almost any other part of Pennsylvania, which is about the same size in square miles as England, is absolutely fair game. Since there is nothing that North Philly offers me unless I'm looking for crack rocks at midnight, I am pretty safe.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Totally incomparable. In fact it's a grotesk absurdity. Guns do not heal, do not reconcile, do not transport people, do not educate poeple, they are exclusively to kill living creatures, not a single other purpose...

No, that's not true, because a gun doesn't have to be fired to be used. In fact most legal firearms usage for self-defense does not involve discharging the weapon. (Even in the rare instances when they are used to kill, the killing isn't necessarily implicitly evil.) I use my weapons every day, and yet I've never hurt anyone with them, nor even tried to. With luck, I never shall. And yet being prepared and willing to use deadly force in true self-defense is a requrement for the weapon to be truly useful.

Your reasoning--and your question--is "grotesquely" simplistic...just like "do drugs make people healthy". Because they don't necessarily, it depends completely on how they are used. Focusing on and demonizing the *thing* is misguided. Do stoves make food taste good? Well, they *can*, but it's not guaranteed. You can make raw food tasty, or you can burn it into inedibility.

Do you not accept the use of deadly force in self-defense?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

"would you want your neighbor to have a {nuke|tank|machine gun}" slippery slope

Wait, what is the answer to that one? Is there a Constitutional difference between sidearms and nuclear arms? I mean, obviously there's a practical difference, but is there a Second Amendment one?

[Hippikos]

Safe? Most definitely. Safer? Subject to definition. I don't believe I could walk through North Philly at midnight without being in danger. Almost any other part of Pennsylvania, which is about the same size in square miles as England, is absolutely fair game. Since there is nothing that North Philly offers me unless I'm looking for crack rocks at midnight, I am pretty safe.

As you mention guns are a very part of the American life, based on frontier, lawless times, which has been gone a long time. The idea that guns will turn men into a rugged, strong Marlboro man is in many eyes unthinkable. Problem is the numbers of arms is so massive in the US that even the smallest percentage of morons will turn into massacres. The majority of all global school shootings did happen in the US.

The question of a safer US was hypothetical, the problem is already there, 200 Million guns cannot be destroyed, let alone the mindset of the average entrepeneurial US citizin. Maybe it's because I'm from a different culture, but I think guns will contribute to a violent society. Entrepeneurship has a diferent meaning to me, think VOC

Your reasoning--and your question--is "grotesquely" simplistic...just like "do drugs make people healthy". Because they don't necessarily, it depends completely on how they are used. Focusing on and demonizing the *thing* is misguided. Do stoves make food taste good? Well, they *can*, but it's not guaranteed. You can make raw food tasty, or you can burn it into inedibility.

You're at it again, making one silly comparison after another. Guns are for killing and drugs are for healing people. Indeed grotesquely simple, no matter how much smoke screens to try to put up.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

You're at it again, making one silly comparison after another. Guns are for killing and drugs are for healing people. Indeed grotesquely simple, no matter how much smoke screens to try to put up.

So...cocaine is for healing people?

And heroin?

Cocaine is used to heal...sometimes. Heroin used to be used medicinally...as a cure for cocaine addiction.

Sodium Pentothal is used for anesthesia induction...or for executions by lethal injection.

Your whole formula of ${x} is for ${y} is deeply flawed. Things simply don't have some nice black-and-while single inherent purpose, subject to your personal judgement as either "good" or "bad".

And I'm still waiting for an answer: do you accept the use of deadly force for self-defense? Because if you don't, and you believe killing is always wrong, this dialogue is pointless.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Wait, what is the answer to that one? Is there a Constitutional difference between sidearms and nuclear arms? I mean, obviously there's a practical difference, but is there a Second Amendment one?

If you can find a reference to nuclear arms in the Constitution, that'll be a first. The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear arms except for big ones".

You're just so anxious to get folks out on that slippery slope...the same slippery slope that the Clinton Gun Ban was all about. ""If we can just establish a class of prohibited weapons, it'll just be a matter of gradually amending the definition of the class until there's nothing left".

[Undertoad]

Well there's the cultural difference; I can start my own company to do web development (or make pizzas, or whatever) without feeling connected in any way at all to the "original sin" of the history of the East India Company.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you can find a reference to nuclear arms in the Constitution, that'll be a first. The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear arms except for big ones".

You're just so anxious to get folks out on that slippery slope...

No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.

If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Then what do they denote?

Read the first or second explanation, Maggie. I have no need nor desire to go over this repeatedly. You are so paranoid and blatantly attempting to utilize the weakest diversionary tactic to avoid the real issues, its pathetic.
Forget about it - lets just agree to disagree about this and move on.
Better yet - go find my pic in the "show yourself" thread, print it out and use it for target practice.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No I thought pretty much everyone was on that slope already, and had different ideas of where to stop.

That's wishful thinking. I'd say it's not the case that "pretty much everybody" shares your ideas of the proper role of government and law.

As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view. (You know, the one that "pretty much everybody" shares.)

Now I know for certain that there are lower statutes and case law that contravene that point of view. U.S v. Miller is probably the most prominent example, although most folks don't understand how narrowly drawn the court's judgement was in that case. Even so, I think U.S v. Miller was wrongly decided.

And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.

But you very carefully asked about the Constitution. Kopel, Halbroook and Korwin's Supreme Court Gun Cases is a useful reference on the topic.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Better yet - go find my pic in the "show yourself" thread, print it out and use it for target practice.

Still projecting your fear and hostility on others, I see. :-)

Maybe it's a good thing you leave your weapons in the hands of others...we wouldn't want any "accidents". (scare quotes intentional).

I just didn't see an explanation that made any sense. If you meant "accident", then say "accident". When you say "'accident'", it carries a different meaning. If it's a case of grocer's apostrophe", then it's an error, but you said it wasn't.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you're staying off the slope, then any restriction on the posession and sale of nuclear weapons within the US is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

..{hey look over there}...

Happy Monkey was asking where you stand, MaggieL, not what the law says. You say you aren't on the slope. If not, where are you? He acknowledged that there are restrictions on owning nukes. Listing those restrictions doesn't answer the question.

In your opinion, is the government wrong to restrict your right to bear nuclear arms? Yes, or no?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

As far as I can see, the constitution provides no foundation for any restriction on the posession of weapons by the people, nor does it delgate such a power to the states. You're invited to point out clauses that support your point of view.

My view is that if you believe the 2nd Amendment prohibits the regulation of arms, then it must also support the right of anyone to own nuclear weapons.

And there are certainly NRC regulations relating to the possession of nuclear material that would essentially prohibit civilian posession of a fission or fusion device of any design I know of.

Under your view of the 2nd amendment, how could that be valid? It would be like allowing firearms, but prohibiting civilian posession of gunpowder. The 2nd should override.

But you very carefully asked about the Constitution.

Right. Any other laws aren't relevant if you think they are unconstitutional (relevant discussion-wise; in real life you still have to follow them if you aren't up for the consequences).

What I think "pretty much everyone" believes is that there are some weapons that should not be in your neighbor's basement. Just as libel and slander aren't mentioned in the First, nukes and weaponized biological agents aren't mentioned in the Second. Arguing the dividing line for both amendments is and should be an ongoing process.