Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 168

Thread: Where do we draw the line?

  1. #1
    Regular Member REPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    13

    Where do we draw the line?

    I was arguing with a gun control supporter and the main argument they chose was the "where do you draw the line?". This person stated that if people have the right to have a rifle or hand gun shouldn't they also be allowed to have rocket launchers, fighter jets, or even nukes. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by REPR View Post
    I was arguing with a gun control supporter and the main argument they chose was the "where do you draw the line?". This person stated that if people have the right to have a rifle or hand gun shouldn't they also be allowed to have rocket launchers, fighter jets, or even nukes. Any thoughts?
    Welcome to OCDO!! (Open Carry Dot Org)

    Your gun-grabber was advancing an illogic: if "x" is allowable; then "y" and "z" must also be allowed. Of course, they were counting on your unfamiliarity with this particular part of the subject. This has been hashed to death, over and over and over. Stand by for rational arguments.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    The principle lies in the contemporary original (hermeneutical) meaning of arms. Similar logic was used to deny us sawed off shotguns for instance.

    There are two hundred years and more jurisprudence written on the Second Amendment, a lot of reading. We stand on the shoulders of giants in the land.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Pointing out that this site is dedicated to defending and promoting the right to OC a hand gun. There are those who would argue that yes people should have the same rights/privileges regarding self-defense as the government.

    There are people who own tanks, flamethrowers, and similar military style gear. I have a friend who owns a MIG. Also recently attended an airshow with privately owned B-17, B-24, and P-47.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Military style tanks and AC, but not arms.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    The first mistake one can make is arguing in the first place.

    Rights don't need to be argued or justified. That is why they're called rights. The justifications and arguments were figured out long, long ago. And, paid for in blood.

    From there it is just a matter of conversational tactics. With a capital T.

    You take the initiative by asking questions. You make him defend his position by answering or responding to your attacks.

    "Oh? You don't think a human life is worth defending in the moment of the criminal attack? Then how do you justify police, and the justice system?"
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-28-2015 at 09:50 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member REPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Welcome to OCDO!! (Open Carry Dot Org)

    Your gun-grabber was advancing an illogic: if "x" is allowable; then "y" and "z" must also be allowed. Of course, they were counting on your unfamiliarity with this particular part of the subject. This has been hashed to death, over and over and over. Stand by for rational arguments.
    Thanks for the welcome. In the short time I've been on here I have observed some very intelligent posts and arguments. I am excited to learn more, and become proficient at defending the Constitution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    As Grape points out, these things are already in private ownership. It just depends on if you have the time, money and patience to deal with the red tape, with the exception of nuclear weapons, obviously.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    As Grape points out, these things are already in private ownership. It just depends on if you have the time, money and patience to deal with the red tape, with the exception of nuclear weapons, obviously.
    Why?

    And, what makes it "obvious"?

    Were I a non-combatant, refugee-from-the-east, resident of Dresden, Germany in early February 1945, I would have every right to defend the life of myself, wife, and children against the Eighth Air Force and General Curtis Lemay (who later acknowledged that had the US government lost the war, he would have been tried for war crimes.)

    If I can legitimately possess an assault rifle (the real definition) that can kill dozens in a French venue, why cannot I not possess artillery, cruise missiles, and even nuclear weapons?

    What makes it "obvious" that I have not the right?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Why?

    What makes it "obvious" that I have not the right?
    I will hope that WalkingWolf will come along and give you his most articulate and succinct explanation of why the 2A doesn't cover nukes, chemicals, biologicals, nor other WMDs. It boils down to this, if I recall from the last time I read his illustrative comments on the subject:

    There is no way that you can bear (use) WMDs against government oppression (nor otherwise) without many innocent persons suffering the effects as well as your intended (and legally/morally justified) target.

    What also makes it obvious is the history that provides original intent of the 2A. It was common for colonial and post ratification members of American society to own swords, firearms, cannon, even armed ships of war. But it was unheard of for anyone to keep the WMDs of their day.

    What? You are unfamiliar with true WMDs of the 18th century? They had been used from time to time for a thousand years.

    They were the rotting corpses of dead animals, and even humans that were catapulted into fortified cities under siege. So much the better if the deceased persons were known to have died of something like black plague or small pox. Some have alleged the US government handed out blankets infected with small pox to some American Indians in a deliberate move to infect and kill them (though others claim any such use of dirty blankets was a matter of ignorance rather than malice in a day before germ theory was mature).

    Public health laws including quarantines were common in the ratification period. To the extent that the risk to public health from diseased or dead animals and ill or deceased persons (and their personal effects) was understood, laws were in place to prevent spreading illnesses. And such laws were, so far as I can tell, never challenged on a supposed right to keep WMDs.

    Individuals owned weapons bearable by individuals (along with ownership of crew served weapons like cannon and ships). Local militias owned and manned crew served weapons. Neither individuals nor local militias presumed to maintain the 18th century version of biological WMDs.

    If the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) is not read as per original intent, then it can be read in any way one desires, including as gun haters would like to read it as only protecting a "right" for States to keep national guards.

    Whether government has any business owning WMDs is another discussion on which I will simply say that since some governments will have them and will be prone to use them for evil purposes, it might be prudent for good governments to maintain enough to act as a deterrent. MAD was a crazy strategy...except for working.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    You seem to be implying that the reason for not maintaining a cache of rotting corpses was purely because a prohibition on it was deemed justifiable. That may be the case, but I see no reason to accept that just because you say it was so. Who's to say that the reasons people of the time didn't maintain caches of rotting corpses weren't purely practical reasons? Tell us, what was the market-availability and shelf-life of a rotting corpse in those days? Can you provide us with a comparative analysis showing the ease of maintenance, difficulty of utilization, effectiveness on target, cost of maintenance, risk to maintainers, etc., between corpse-based and other weaponry available at the time? I mean, this may just be me, but it seems like keeping a corpse-based armament might have really just been a generally bad, undesirable, and impractical endeavor, as opposed to being a case where the government wisely and justly prohibited a bunch of people that were chomping at the bit to get their corpse-caches set up.

    On a more serious note, and very simply, the improbability of having a legitimate use for an item doesn't preclude a right to own it.

    Additionally, I would submit that if deterrent effect is a good enough reason for a "good" government to maintain an item, it is even more a good enough reason for a good individual to maintain that item. Remember, the men we're speaking of not only wanted the general populous to be armed, but many of these men vehemently argued against having a standing army. They didn't just want the general populous armed, they actually wanted a state of being where the general populous was in superior strategic position to the government.
    Advocate freedom please

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Why?

    And, what makes it "obvious"?
    I think he only meant that under our current laws, nuclear armaments are not available to the average Joe regardless of what red-tape they're willing to wade through, as opposed to some of the other items being discussed, like tanks or planes, etc. I don't think he was arguing the right or wrong of the matter.
    Advocate freedom please

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    SNIP They didn't just want the general populous armed, they actually wanted a state of being where the general populous was in superior strategic position to the government.
    Hmmmm. Let me see. I'll need a water-front property--with a dock. To tie up my ballistic missile submarine, you know.

    And, hmmmm, maybe a nice, wide spread in the Dakotas, or maybe Montana. For the silo, of course.

    And, I guess I better get started on taking over the internet. Just the hubs, mind you. Where I can intercept every single fiber-optic cable in the world.

    <tapping fingers> You know, it occurs to me that I'm gonna need more money. Lots more.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The antis argument is this: just get rid of the MOST dangerous gun/weapon.

    Of course, following this logic, we would have access to none as there always will be a most dangerous gun/weapon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hmmmm. Let me see. I'll need a water-front property--with a dock. To tie up my ballistic missile submarine, you know.
    And, hmmmm, maybe a nice, wide spread in the Dakotas, or maybe Montana. For the silo, of course.
    And, I guess I better get started on taking over the internet. Just the hubs, mind you. Where I can intercept every single fiber-optic cable in the world.
    <tapping fingers> You know, it occurs to me that I'm gonna need more money. Lots more.
    citizen...do what the grass roots groups do....get a gofundme page...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    citizen...do what the grass roots groups do....get a gofundme page...

    ipse
    Or kickstart ? See this one, a funny one:

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ref=nav_search

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    The fallacy of the argument of "Where do we draw the line?" is the assumption, the foregone conclusion taken for fact, that there must be a line drawn.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    A good point. Called affirming the antecedent or modus ponendo ponens, modus ponens, or MP for short.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-29-2015 at 06:56 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The fallacy of the argument of "Where do we draw the line?" is the assumption, the foregone conclusion taken for fact, that there must be a line drawn.
    +1Quibbling about words in the 2A isn't the point either. Since the document doesn't grant any rights at all and simply recognizes a pre existing right to use arms against the government.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    Welcome to OCDO. I have to agree that thinking a line has to be drawn is a huge fallacy. The only line to be drawn IMO is when laws infringe on our rights. We need to defend against infringement upon all our rights. Look at the 1st amendment as it pertains to violent video games and music. I for one am convinced that the video games do influence violence in some people if not at the very least desensitizes an impressionable mind to it. BUT... you can not infringe on the free expression of such things. The right to bear arms seems to be the one that is still singled out for this so called line to be drawn.

    I have yet to be in a discussion with an anti that when they are presented with facts they didn't get frustrated and angered and resorted to raising their voice and name calling and outright irrationality and spouting off with all sorts of scenarios that just don't happen. You can't reason with the unreasonable. I have asked one person why is it you want to take my gun away but I am not trying to make you own or carry one? They said because you can kill me with yours but I can't kill you without one. I laughed and pointed out that I follow the law, murder is against the law, so I said what do you do with someone who doesn't follow the law? Kind of a light bulb moment for them there and they gave up the argument.

    I hope you enjoy the OCDO site. Its members are full of knowledge and experience. I encourage you to go to some of the get togethers if you can. Good bunch of people. I moved out of the Davison area 2 yrs. ago and miss the functions. TN is not real active on this front.

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Or kickstart ? See this one, a funny one:

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ref=nav_search
    that she got 1.9K is truly unbelievable...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1Quibbling about words in the 2A isn't the point either. Since the document doesn't grant any rights at all snip....
    thank you so much for reiterating that concept!!!

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 11-29-2015 at 01:46 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1Quibbling about words in the 2A isn't the point either. Since the document doesn't grant any rights at all and simply recognizes a pre existing right to use arms against the government.
    Its really just fodder for lawyers to argue among themselves. A right cannot be regulated and we have the natural right to KBA.

    People like to point to court opinions in favor of their viewpoint or against .. but the "votes" of members of the judiciary are irrelevant to the fact that we have the RKBA. I guess some people enjoy the judicial game .. but their votes are meaningless in reality in respect to the right itself.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    SNIP but the "votes" of members of the judiciary are irrelevant to the fact that we have the RKBA. I guess some people enjoy the judicial game .. but their votes are meaningless in reality in respect to the right itself.
    +1

    They're really just voting whether they will recognize a right or a piece of a right.

    Of course, these same people are willing to rule others without their consent, so there's no surprise there.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-29-2015 at 01:41 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1quibbling about words in the 2a isn't the point either. Since the document doesn't grant any rights at all and simply recognizes a pre existing right to use arms against the government keep and bear arms.
    fify
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •