Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

Exhibit number 2:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24417[/ATTACH]

Andy's solution was 'bullet control' - but it worked. Barney never killed anyone - did nearly shot off his own foot once or twice, however...

[Joel]

But time and again, the SCOTUS has ruled that there is no contradiction between government regulation of fire arms and the second amendment. ... Gun control has been ruled constitutional many times, get over it.

I pointed out earlier how time and again the SCOTUS has ruled in obvious contradiction to the Constitution. Why should anyone put credence in your appeal-to-authority here?

[Joel]

It's called negligence, Joel.

If you don't get your car inspected or you drive recklessly, and cause an accident, you can be held responsible. If your child or pet destroys someone else property, you can be held responsible. If you have a hazardous tree that crashes into someone home, you can be held liable. Etc, etc, etc.

Gun owners and gun dealers should be no different. If they want to roll the dice and give a gun to someone based on their own judgement of that persons mental capacity, they should be held liable for any damages and be open to litigation.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the difference between storing something in your locked house vs in a locked safe in a locked house (with respect to the possibility of someone breaking into your house and stealing it).

As a side note, I had a friend who had a safe and burglars broke into his home and stole the safe. They assume you keep the good stuff in there.

So you need to keep your dog in a safe, so it doesn't get stolen and bite someone after being stolen?

It seems like it would be pretty easy to kill any unsuspecting person with a kitchen knife. The fact that happens so rarely is a testament to how non-murderous people are.
When you say "sheer luck" I'm guessing you had more in mind a situation in which the other person is fighting back?

And it may depend on the crime. If the thief is going to commit arson, for example, your gasoline is perhaps a better tool than your gun.

Yes, that falls under 'responsibility'. Same reason pharmacies are legally required to secure narcotics.

Yes to what? All of those? Yes, you need to keep your dog in a safe? Yes, you need to keep your kitchen knives in a safe? Yes, you need to keep gasoline in a safe?

so if someone steals your car and kills someone, it's YOUR fault?

Yes, Sparko, you need to keep your car locked in a secure vault. If you ever used street parking, for instance, then if someone stole your locked car (or the gasoline from it) and used it in the commission of a crime, then the crime is your fault. Since we've established that keeping things in a locked home is no defense against negligence, parking your car in your locked garage is also negligent. To be on the safe side you probably should also hire armed guards to defend the vault, assuming guns don't get banned.

[JimL]

I pointed out earlier how time and again the SCOTUS has ruled in obvious contradiction to the Constitution. Why should anyone put credence in your appeal-to-authority here?

In obvious contradiction according to you, not according to the Supreme Court. Obviously not everyone agrees with each others interpretations, not even the Justices, but they get the last word.

[Teallaura]

I pointed out earlier how time and again the SCOTUS has ruled in obvious contradiction to the Constitution. Why should anyone put credence in your appeal-to-authority here?

Really? So you think the early Courts didn't know what the Second was about? Because this is nothing new - it's never been treated as an unlimited right. Ever.

[Joel]

In obvious contradiction according to you, not according to the Supreme Court. Obviously not everyone agrees with each others interpretations, not even the Justices, but they get the last word.

"no law" means: some laws; "shall not be infringed" means: may be infringed a good deal; "interstate commerce" means anything at all, including things that are neither interstate nor commerce; involuntary servitude "shall not exist" means the government may require involuntary servitude if they want, etc. Rather blatant contradictions.

As for "they get the last word," that's a thing because they claimed that that is so!
So that's a circular argument.

[Teallaura]

...

As a side note, I had a friend who had a safe and burglars broke into his home and stole the safe. They assume you keep the good stuff in there.



Yes to what? All of those? Yes, you need to keep your dog in a safe? Yes, you need to keep your kitchen knives in a safe? Yes, you need to keep gasoline in a safe?


....

Yes to you are not willing to be a responsible gun owner and shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons.

[Zymologist]

Yes to you are not willing to be a responsible gun owner and shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons.

But you've already said that responsible gun owners don't exist...so what now?

[Teallaura]

But you've already said that responsible gun owners don't exist...so what now?

Well, he proved me right, for one thing.

But since I allowed that they probably exist and based my support for gun ownership on that basis, I don't think there's an actual problem here.

[Joel]

Really? So you think the early Courts didn't know what the Second was about? Because this is nothing new - it's never been treated as an unlimited right. Ever.

It's that the courts even early on have been wrong time and again including on crucial matters, so that, in general, it seems that "the courts said so" is not reliable.

[Zymologist]

Well, he proved me right, for one thing.

But since I allowed that they probably exist and based my support for gun ownership on that basis, I don't think there's an actual problem here.

Ok, one question comes to mind. How many armed men are you willing to send to his home to ensure compliance? Assuming he's a gun owner, and accepting for the sake of argument that he's irresponsible and therefore should "not be allowed" to own guns, what are you willing to do to correct this? Should the armed men be allowed to shoot on sight (due to his dangerous, unpredictable, and violent nature, obviously)?

[Joel]

Yes to you are not willing to be a responsible gun owner and shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons.

So now it's an ad hominem, even though I never said I personally wouldn't/don't keep guns in a safe? None of this is about what I am willing to do.

[Teallaura]

It's that the courts even early on have been wrong time and again including on crucial matters, so that, in general, it seems that "the courts said so" is not reliable.

The Court has the constitutional responsibility (so it claimed in Marbury v Madison). You not agreeing doesn't make them wrong. That early Courts (note the capital C, please) held that states could in fact regulate guns and that subsequent Federal law has been allowed to regulate guns completely undercuts the 'regulation is infringement' nonsense.

Rights are NOT one sided as you wish to believe. Rights come with responsibilities and government does have some regulatory power to insure that those responsibilities are carried out.

[Teallaura]

So now it's an ad hominem, even though I never said I personally wouldn't/don't keep guns in a safe? None of this is about what I am willing to do.

Actually, that's not an ad hominem argument - so the fallacy isn't at issue. And since you are insisting on ridiculous comparisons of weapons to non-weapons, and deliberately misconstruing what I have said I am not seeing where you have much credibility here.

[Zymologist]

Actually, that's not an ad hominem argument - so the fallacy isn't at issue. And since you are insisting on ridiculous comparisons of weapons to non-weapons, and deliberately misconstruing what I have said I am not seeing where you have much credibility here.

I don't think this is a fair response. This kind of crap is why I don't take Civics seriously--Joel is one of the most patient posters on here.