EPTThere is no consensus on whether gun control is a good or bad thing but it is delusional to think that the second amendment has any bearing upon whether or not it would be positive. Being in line with the amendment is not virtuous and being contrary to it is not a sin. They're just words. Base your arguments in whether or not it would be good or bad, a constitution is intended to enshrine the values of a society, not dictate them absent reason or justification.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
There is no consensus on whether gun control is a good or bad thing but it is delusional to think that the second amendment has any bearing upon whether or not it would be positive. Being in line with the amendment is not virtuous and being contrary to it is not a sin. They're just words. Base your arguments in whether or not it would be good or bad, a constitution is intended to enshrine the values of a society, not dictate them absent reason or justification. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 21 2013 11:57 KwarK wrote: I've said this many times before but I find this entire line of discussion utterly ridiculous. Those who genuinely believe gun control is a good thing don't think so because of their interpretation of the amendment, they think so because they think it would make society a better place. Likewise, I really, really doubt that most gun rights advocates believe in it just because it was written down by a man living in a completely different world, they think gun rights are important in modern America for a bunch of reasons relevant to modern America. If both sides could agree upon the best outcome and it was to ban guns then that wouldn't stop being the best outcome just because of the wording of the amendment, you'd just change the amendment. America is a country founded on slavery, that didn't stop people admitting that the founding fathers got that one wrong and updating it. There is no consensus on whether gun control is a good or bad thing but it is delusional to think that the second amendment has any bearing upon whether or not it would be positive. Being in line with the amendment is not virtuous and being contrary to it is not a sin. They're just words. Base your arguments in whether or not it would be good or bad, a constitution is intended to enshrine the values of a society, not dictate them absent reason or justification. There are two levels to the argument (likely more, but broadly speaking...): Legal and Value. They're both legitimate. We've discussed value multiple times already, now legal is making the rounds again. Clearly there are other ways to argue it, but in this case the established (implicit) axioms seem to accept the Constitution as the framework for the subsequent arguments. Also, the Constitution was certainly intended to dictate, not simply stand as a temporal testament to a given peoples values. To reject this is to reject the rule of law and chalk up the entire document to nothing more than an anachronistic memoir by some smart guys about how they thought government should work. This line of reasoning, while legitimate under specific circumstances, gets us nowhere in the given context. Magpie framed his argument based on the wording, NOT on the legitimacy of the amendment to exist at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 21 2013 12:17 KwarK wrote: In order to dictate how things must be without needing to prove the virtue of the commands divine authority is required. The framers of the constitution were not divine, nor did they claim to be, they had rational reasons for believing that their words had value. If those reasons are still true then those words still have value, if, however, the reasons no longer stand then I sincerely doubt they would wish people to cling to their words like scripture. These were men on the forefront of the revolutionary enlightenment, they would have found their posthumous deification abhorrent. It is not to them, or their images that I defer, but to their ideas. They were noble and well intentioned, often idealistic, but similarly many of their ideas proved tractable and functional. Just because I agree with them, doesn't mean I cling to their words like scripture. Why reinvent the wheel? If what I mean to say has already been said (and said better than I could attempt it) why would I change the words? Just to appease my opposition? There is a strong case that their words (in their original effects) still have value. This thread is a testament to that fact. The sheer amount of sources that have been hurled by either side is staggering. At the end of the day, I suppose finagling over the wording is bowing out to a heuristic device, but that doesn't mean that the basis for the shortcut are wrong, it simply recognizes that the shortcut exists and we'll (for the sake of the given argument) accept it. If you want to have a debate along the other lines (the value based argument) I'm sure we can facilitate that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 21 2013 12:44 KwarK wrote: We don't not reinvent the wheel because the proverb "why reinvent the wheel" exists, we don't reinvent the wheel because wheels are remarkably good at being wheels. If they should ever fail at being wheels (for example on a boat) we would absolutely reinvent the wheel (and call it a propeller). My point is that if you can come up with a bunch of good reasons for why allowing citizens access to guns is a great idea and we can all agree on them then who cares what the constitution says. It's a great idea because of the reasons it's good, not because it conforms with the scripture. Arguing over the interpretation of well regulated and so forth as if twisting the constitution to support your view gives your view any more weight is an insanity that both sides seem to partake in. The idea only has value because neither side is willing to just admit that the constitution does not have the power to bless a viewpoint and make it sacred through association, if either were to turn round and say "what I think isn't constitutional but I think the constitution is not based on arguments that still apply" then they'd notice the emperor has no clothes and could address the heart of the matter. So would it be fair to say that you're of the opinion that the Constitution is in fact anachronistic and needs to be scrapped? Or at least selectively dismissed? Either way, I can play this bounce as well. Fine, I'll accept the axiom that legality is of no consequence. Would you like to go the public safety route, or the more philosophical ethics route? And I suppose I need to ask, what is your position on the burning question, "Should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
On May 21 2013 12:56 Kimaker wrote: So would it be fair to say that you're of the opinion that the Constitution is in fact anachronistic and needs to be scrapped? Or at least selectively dismissed? Either way, I can play this bounce as well. Fine, I'll accept the axiom that legality is of no consequence. Would you like to go the public safety route, or the more philosophical ethics route? And I suppose I need to ask, what is your position on the burning question, "Should people be allowed to own and carry guns?" Parts of the constitution are useful but they are useful because they match values that we all agree are useful to have, they have no intrinsic value beyond that. The values aren't right because they match the constitution, rather the constitution is right because it matches the values. With that in mind the constitution is essentially meaningless except as a means to justify forcibly repressing subsections of the population who do not share the collective values, something which can be justified without a codified constitution. An appeal to the constitution to give an argument weight ought to be dismissed, you can keep the constitution as long as you don't view it as scripture though. As for gun control in modern America, that's a ridiculously complicated problem without an easy answer. I would ideally like a society without guns as I believe the myth of overthrowing a tyranny or defending the nation against the redcoats are no longer real concerns but I have yet to see a viable program for how to get to a society without guns. I'd rather reality were not as it was but given that it is I have no answers. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
That's not to say we necessarily interpret the second amendment perfectly. edit: I don't think there are any incompatibilities between what I and other people are saying at the moment | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 21 2013 13:11 KwarK wrote: Parts of the constitution are useful but they are useful because they match values that we all agree are useful to have, they have no intrinsic value beyond that. The values aren't right because they match the constitution, rather the constitution is right because it matches the values. With that in mind the constitution is essentially meaningless except as a means to justify forcibly repressing subsections of the population who do not share the collective values, something which can be justified without a codified constitution. An appeal to the constitution to give an argument weight ought to be dismissed, you can keep the constitution as long as you don't view it as scripture though. As for gun control in modern America, that's a ridiculously complicated problem without an easy answer. I would ideally like a society without guns as I believe the myth of overthrowing a tyranny or defending the nation against the redcoats are no longer real concerns but I have yet to see a viable program for how to get to a society without guns. I'd rather reality were not as it was but given that it is I have no answers. Your entire first section can be addressed very simply: Federalism. By allowing states their intended degree of autonomy there is less of a chance of having those repressed subsections of the population as it allows people to more personally interact with their specifics of their laws.. This was also addressed in the Constitution with the 10th amendment. However, it was later counteracted with the overzealous use and loose interpretation of the 14th amendment and the practical outcomes of the Civil War. The original document was very successful at being internally coherent, but subsequent court rulings and the election to defer de facto to common law (read judicial review) over canonical law results in judicial (and social ) schizophrenia. I'd like a society without a lot of things too, not to say that you're doing this (your not) but the tendency is for people to refuse to admit this, and then proceed to take activist positions without realizing that their position is primarily emotional. I'll simply leave off here by saying, "I'd rather live in a society that has guns, and then, to a greater degree than we see them now." Edit: @Micronesia: Yes. Pretty much that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
On May 21 2013 13:14 micronesia wrote: The advantage of having documents which carry so much weight in a government is that they prevent the quick/secret/arbitrary implementation of many horrible things that won't pass if forced to undergo close scrutiny. How does it prevent it? The constitution won't rise up and give papercuts to those breaching it. People have to do that. Either the people are willing to do so or they are not. In the UK the parliament at Westminster wields the unrestrained powers of the monarchy, in a strictly legal sense no previous parliament can bind them and their only restriction is that they cannot bind a future parliament. There is no limit to the abuses they could carry out, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty empowers them to do anything they wish. In practice though it is understood that values such as freedom of speech, worship, property and so forth should be respected, even if they are not constitutionally forced to. Ultimately it is a system built upon the consent of the people, just as yours is, and we have not needed to clothe that reality in a constitution. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On May 21 2013 13:27 KwarK wrote: How does it prevent it? The constitution won't rise up and give papercuts to those breaching it. Yea the second amendment won't mean anything if the entire constitution is unilaterally discarded... it only has meaning in those 'in-between' cases where the US leadership needs limitations imposed on them but are not willing to break their own cardinal rules. Without the second amendment the government could quickly/secretly 'pass' a law tomorrow which bans all guns in all capacities, without breaking any cardinal rules (I'm sure there would be some technical violations, but nothing on the scale of the constitution). With the second amendment the legislative or executive branch would need to disobey the judicial branch in order to accomplish the same thing (this is just an example of course). | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 21 2013 13:27 KwarK wrote: How does it prevent it? The constitution won't rise up and give papercuts to those breaching it. People have to do that. Either the people are willing to do so or they are not. In the UK the parliament at Westminster wields the unrestrained powers of the monarchy, in a strictly legal sense no previous parliament can bind them and their only restriction is that they cannot bind a future parliament. There is no limit to the abuses they could carry out, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty empowers them to do anything they wish. In practice though it is understood that values such as freedom of speech, worship, property and so forth should be respected, even if they are not constitutionally forced to. Ultimately it is a system built upon the consent of the people, just as yours is, and we have not needed to clothe that reality in a constitution. Because parliamentary systems are structurally more democratic than republican in nature and (speaking for myself) democracy is barbaric and vile and ends up catering to the least common denominator in society. Not to say our system doesn't do the exact same thing (it does. and likely will be harder to overcome because of the structural "slowness" of it all), but the intention is to let people know that they're not in charge of the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never intended to have the level of participation it has now, nor the level of power it wields now. It all comes back to Federalism. We abandoned that principle, and the whole thing is shot to shit. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
America is a country founded on slavery, Oh please. No country has ever been "founded on slavery." Well except the Confederacy but last I checked we kicked their asses and told them no. There is no consensus on whether gun control is a good or bad thing but it is delusional to think that the second amendment has any bearing upon whether or not it would be positive. Being in line with the amendment is not virtuous and being contrary to it is not a sin. They're just words. Base your arguments in whether or not it would be good or bad, a constitution is intended to enshrine the values of a society, not dictate them absent reason or justification. Gobbledegook. The Constitution is not and has never been a dictation of values absent reason or justification. The Constitution is also not a history book, if you want to find out why those values were enshrined, go pick up one. A governing document doesn't need a justification annotation after every section. That is for other preambles or other writings. "Just words," can this god-awful argument please be decapitated and a stake put in its heart so we never have to see it again. Whether or not something is good or bad is an argument that has been going on about that something since there was a that something to argue about. We don't have to make up our arguments from scratch. The Second Amendment is in place for reasons, by invoking it those reasons are invoked as well, and those reasons have been discussed up down and side to side and forwards and backwards in this thread as you very well know. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
On May 21 2013 13:54 DeepElemBlues wrote: Oh please. No country has ever been "founded on slavery." Well except the Confederacy but last I checked we kicked their asses and told them no. Gobbledegook. The Constitution is not and has never been a dictation of values absent reason or justification. The Constitution is also not a history book, if you want to find out why those values were enshrined, go pick up one. A governing document doesn't need a justification annotation after every section. That is for other preambles or other writings. "Just words," can this god-awful argument please be decapitated and a stake put in its heart so we never have to see it again. Whether or not something is good or bad is an argument that has been going on about that something since there was a that something to argue about. We don't have to make up our arguments from scratch. The Second Amendment is in place for reasons, by invoking it those reasons are invoked as well, and those reasons have been discussed up down and side to side and forwards and backwards in this thread as you very well know. Last I checked there was an argument going on about the precise meaning of well regulated as well as the intent behind it as if that would drastically alter the effectiveness of gun control. It's nothing but the slavish worship of scripture, no different from Islamic jurists trying to twist the Koran to support whatever it is they think instead of just saying "this is what I think for the following reasons". It is utterly absurd, your claim that when people say they are arguing about the second amendment what they are really doing is citing the arguments built into the second amendment is simply not what was happening here. Multiple people were discussing the historical meaning of the words well regulated as if it makes the slightest bit of difference to whether gun control is good or bad because they have given the words of the constitution a religious value that does not exist. They are just words. The real problem is the lack of a decent American foundation myth in my opinion. If you guys had a King Arthur who conveniently left no historical record then you could all choose your values without referring to him. Instead you have a bunch of guys who actually existed and wrote a lot down and because you want your foundation to have meaning you've started worshiping them. They were pretty impressive political theorists and philosophers for their time but their words have no value beyond that of a political theorist hundreds of years ago. | ||
|
LanTAs
United States1091 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 21 2013 14:03 KwarK wrote: Last I checked there was an argument going on about the precise meaning of well regulated as well as the intent behind it as if that would drastically alter the effectiveness of gun control. It's nothing but the slavish worship of scripture, no different from Islamic jurists trying to twist the Koran to support whatever it is they think instead of just saying "this is what I think for the following reasons". It is utterly absurd, your claim that when people say they are arguing about the second amendment what they are really doing is citing the arguments built into the second amendment is simply not what was happening here. Multiple people were discussing the historical meaning of the words well regulated as if it makes the slightest bit of difference to whether gun control is good or bad because they have given the words of the constitution a religious value that does not exist. They are just words. The real problem is the lack of a decent American foundation myth in my opinion. If you guys had a King Arthur who conveniently left no historical record then you could all choose your values without referring to him. Instead you have a bunch of guys who actually existed and wrote a lot down and because you want your foundation to have meaning you've started worshiping them. They were pretty impressive political theorists and philosophers for their time but their words have no value beyond that of a political theorist hundreds of years ago. How can you possibly feel justified in saying that our founding fathers would find their posthumous deification abhorrent (as if such a thing is even happening) and then compare people backing up what they wrote to Islamic jurists trying to twist the Koran to support whatever they think? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue. | ||
|
Campitor
36 Posts
On May 21 2013 15:10 KwarK wrote: I think you've misunderstood me. I was comparing the use of the constitution as an unquestionable tome of authority to the Koran which is believed to have been divinely dictated. In both cases I believe people ought to back up why they believe what they believe with arguments that have material proof and falsifiable claims. By all means seek out the reasons why the beliefs espoused in the constitution are good, find out what is still valid and relevant and support it because of that, not because of who wrote it or where. As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue. The constitution isn't an unquestionable tome of authority but it is the highest law of the land. Every American citizen, at least naturalized, must swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. American soldiers are required to do the same. The US Constitution is there to inform American citizenry and government what is legal and which laws are immutable unless overturned by a constitutional amendment. US jurisprudence is informed on how to interpret the US Constitution by legal precendent and original intent, and to do so requires parsing the language of the US Constitution. Any arguments regarding the merits of the 2nd amendment must take into account what the language of the 2nd amendment means and what was the intent of the 2nd amendment. This analysis must be done so we are aware of the legal requirements and limitations and whether we should try to amend it if it no longer serves the citizens of the republic. The Constitution was ratified by a group of diverse men. Some of those men feared mob rule while other feared that a vocal minority could suppress the rights of the majority. Is the 2nd amendment still valid? Should American citizens be allowed to carry guns? What is more important? Do the rights of 1million+ American's who own guns override the safety of 40+ thousand Americans who die by the gun each year? Guns are used for hunting and self protection and their ownership is enshrined within an Amendment that is the law. The US Supreme court has ruled that gun ownership cannot be curtailed but can be regulated at the state level as long as it doesn't interfere with gun ownership. The argument on gun ownership is over for now - the only means to end gun ownership is via an amendment to the US Constitution. Personally I would love to see a world where no one has a gun but no one has to fear any violence whatsoever. But that world doesn't exist and the only way the old or the weak can defend themselves, or at least give evil doers pause, is to have a weapon that equalizes the threat of harm. Which weapon would that be if not a gun? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 21 2013 15:10 KwarK wrote: I think you've misunderstood me. I was comparing the use of the constitution as an unquestionable tome of authority to the Koran which is believed to have been divinely dictated. In both cases I believe people ought to back up why they believe what they believe with arguments that have material proof and falsifiable claims. By all means seek out the reasons why the beliefs espoused in the constitution are good, find out what is still valid and relevant and support it because of that, not because of who wrote it or where. As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue. Being that the 2nd amendment is the only reason America has as much gun availability as it has now, and being that some people on this thread translate "well regulated militia being necessary" as being as little regulation as possible, it's pretty damn relevant to show them that the literal proof they have to keep gun rights actually tells them to keep it regulated. Without the 2nd amendment I can guarantee you that Reagan would have incited a full on gun ban. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On May 21 2013 14:19 LanTAs wrote: There are enough idiots with weapons that can kill a person with just the push of a gas pedal, I do not see why we want people with the capability to kill a person with a pull of a finger. I find the arguments in support for gun advocacy weak and illogical, and honestly the people who support it try to derail arguments against it by making the arguments completely immoral and dangerous to society. Amendments were meant to be changed, or else why the fuck would we have this system in the US to change it? Is it just a symbolism of America's will to change, or rather its ignorance and resistance towards progression to a better society? Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how many precautions you take to reduce gun violence, so why even bother allowing anybody have them? Just remember that the majority of these massacres have been caused by people who have attained these weapons of mass destruction by legal ways, which the background checks and gun safes failed to stop. Remember that even though it is the land of the free, we as human beings of our community must become morally responsible and protect each other from harm, not just turn a blind eye and hope for the best. Sure, but if you can't trust civilians enough to let them have guns, you can't trust the police or the military with them either. They're just as human, and just as prone to random violence. A uniform doesn't make someone a saint. On May 21 2013 22:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being that the 2nd amendment is the only reason America has as much gun availability as it has now, and being that some people on this thread translate "well regulated militia being necessary" as being as little regulation as possible, it's pretty damn relevant to show them that the literal proof they have to keep gun rights actually tells them to keep it regulated. Without the 2nd amendment I can guarantee you that Reagan would have incited a full on gun ban. As we've been over before, in the context it was written in, "well regulated" didn't refer to government regulation, it referred to the militia being in good working order. Kwark, if you want arguments not based on the Constitution, just go back a few pages, this line of discussion hasn't been going on that long. | ||
| ||
