Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

The faulty logic you have provided from the beginning does not pass for such. Each time I requested supporting information or clarification for your illogical connections, you simply insulted me and failed to address the inconsistencies in your argument.

As I have stated over and over, you have NOT provided a logical connection for your position, and when I have provided a logical connection between the actual rights in question, and your attempt to tie a "right to drive" to them, all you can do is call me "dense." Try arguing in good faith, and you may have a chance to provide information that will actually prove your point. You have not done so.

Ok captain intranetz argument citation master, address this one that's been raised multiple times so that everyone can watch you side step the issue and instead present a volley of counter-questions.



This is inarguable FACT the nature of "natural rights," if it were not so, they would not be natural rights. So the basis of the statement issound. Now address the issue...

And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.

If the burden of proof is shifted to the populace to prove that anything IS a rightbefore it can be so (rather than to thegovernment to provethings AREN'T rights, and therefore regulate them), then rights are something fought for by the people and then granted by the government, not something that exists as part of nature like the laws of physics. Do you understand that? If you do not, then we cannot continue on because you are too stupid.

Insults and name calling, the same old same old. If you would just cite the authority for your position the argument would be over.

Where did you get this:

This is inarguable FACT the nature of "natural rights," if it were not so, they would not be natural rights. So the basis of the statement issound. Now address the issue...

And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.

Is this from a book that could be cited as a source, or did you just make it up? If it is from an authoritative source, please cite, if not, then how does it carry any more weight than the rest of your opinion? What can you cite to show that your opinion carries more authority than mine?

You accuse others of just repeating themselves, but you will not answer questions directly, will not cite authority, will just keep saying that because you say so, it must be so.

How stupid would we have to be to just go along with someone,just because they said so. I'm sorry, but you will have to do a little better than that to convince me. It will take more than just your word to sway me,because I say so. I guess that is a product of my growing up in "The Show Me State".

You still do not show how driving a caris a natural right (nothing natural about a car, they don't grow on trees, they don't get dug up from the ground, they don't self reproduce, we aren't born with one), so the burden of proof is still yours in that driving is a natural right.

Everyone here but you and marshaul seem to understand the arguments being put forth by both sides, orat least you are the only ones claiming that the others don't understand. You are the first to go personal in your attacks, the sign of a weak personwith a weak argument. So that makes me wonder about who the dense one is.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Where did you get this:

Do you understand what a "natural" right is? If you do not, don't expect me to "cite" it for you. Don't jump into a discussion amongst PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics and start crying for people to "cite" definitions for you, otherwisethey're wrong. YOU go do your research to make sure you understand the topic before opening your mouth.

What authority had to be cited to make gravity true? Who had to PROVE it true before it became a law of nature?

Do you or do you not belive in the existance of "natural" rights?

If you do, the burden of proof lies on people/governments to prove that acts of non-aggression are NOT rights. So, basically, if you believe in natural rights, this debate is over. The purden of proof is on the other side and they've already proved they can't handle it.

Now on the other hand, if you DO NOT believe in natural rights...

If you do not believe in natural rights, then there is no basis for the Constitution simply "recognizing" pre-existing rights as the founders intended it to (the Constitution doesn't prove the right to free speech, nor does it "cite to authority" on the basis for the right, it simply acknowledges that it exists as part of space/time), because you don't believe in pre-existing rights. That means that the only rights that exist in your world are those enumerated in the Constitution or other law (that's why Marshaul and I have made that comment multiple times to the bafflement of the other side that fails at deducing this, or anything, really), and those rights only exist because the Constitution GRANTS them to us. NOW, in THIS world, the burden of proof is on people to prove that things ARE rights. Until proven to be a right, an act isa privaledge liable to be regulated at the government's wish and whim. THAT is the world you create when the burden of proof is onpeople to prove the existance of rights and THAT is why we keep making the comments that we do that the opposition just can't seem to grasp a hold of.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

The burden of proof is not on the populace. It is on you. If you wish to cause me to disprove your point as you state below, you must first provide the source for your contention that I MUST do so.

I have addressed directly several times in this thread my position that driving is not a separate right, but is only a method used by choice to exercise a right to movement. Each time, you ignore and bleat away.

You wandering off the logic trail. Try again. Focus this time.
If you want to play the semantics game too, I have no problem countering that.

"You wandering off the logic trail?" :uhoh:
Oh, I get it, did you mean: "You are wandering off the logic trail."

No, I am not doing such.
AWDstylez wrote:

Right = move freely about

Right exercise method = drive

Okay, you have a reasonable beginning.


AWDstylez wrote:

Right = keep and bear arms

Right exercise method = own and carry a SIG P220

Here is where you lost logical focus.
To match this, the first section you began with should be "Right exercise method = drive a Ford Fairlane."

Right = Keep and Bear Arms is all-inclusive. SIG P220 is a personal choice for method, which is provided for in "arms." So is a Colt 1991A1, so is a Ruger single six, so is a musket, so is a derringer.

Driving is one method of movement. Walking is another method. Bicycling is yet another. Riding a horse is another one.
Movement is the right or freedom.
Driving, walking, bicycling, horseback riding are not separate rights. They are possible methods that an individual may choose.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is both Right, and Method. This is where you have lost logical focus when you attempt to equate driving with carrying a firearm.


AWDstylez wrote:

Right = free speech

Right exercise method = internet blogging



Under these generic "rights" umbrellas (moving about freely, keeping and bearing arms, and free speech) we have all possible exercise methods. This means...



Right = keep and bear arms... also includes Right = own and carry a SIG P220 (or any other "arm" your heart desires)

Right = free speech... also includes Right = internet blogging (or any other method of "speech" you choose to utilize.

Right = move about freely... also includes Right = driving (or any method of moving about your heart desires).



I have a right to keep and bear arms, therefore I have a right to keep and bear a gun, therefore I have a right to keep and bear a SIG, therefore I have a right to keep and bear a P220.

Right = keep and bear P220

I have to free speech, therefore I have a right to free speech on the internet, therefore I have a right to blog on the internet.

Right = blog on internet

I have a right to move about freely, therefore I have a right to drive. Driving isa method of moving about freely. I have a right to move about freely, therefore there is an implied right to drive.

Right = drive

Saying I have no right to drive because walking "moves me about freely" just fine, is identical to saying I have no right to carry a P220 because a P3AT is good enough andI have no right to internet blogging becausePost It notes on the refridgerator at work are good enough.

/end semantics game




And you still need to address the above point, minus the semantics.

AWDstylez:

If the burden of proof is shifted to the populace to prove that anything IS a rightbefore it can be so (rather than to thegovernment to provethings AREN'T rights, and therefore regulate them), then rights are something fought for by the people and then granted by the government, not something that exists as part of nature like the laws of physics. Do you understand that? If you do not, then we cannot continue on because you are too stupid.

"Semantics game?" Your silly SIG example is far from the "method" of driving and attempting to equate driving to a Right. Being able to choose to carry a SIG firearm does not create owning a SIG as a right.
Stating that free movement gives us "driving as a right" is the difficulty you are having. There really is no rational basis for it. A person can exercise free movement in vehicles without driving. Owning and operating a vehicle is not required for exercise of the right of movement.

Each of us can choose to own and operate a vehicle, but this does not create it as a right.

Each of us can choose to blog on the Internet, or send letters to someone, or speak on a streetcorner. These are simply choices in the method of right exercise. Having these choices does not automatically create each one as a separate right.

Each of us can choose a specific caliber or make/model of firearm to exercise the 2nd amendment right, but stating that we have a right to a SIG of specific make/model is not logical. Restriction of the 2nd amendment by limiting us to specific make/models or calibers (or classes) of firearms violates the articulated "common use" meaning of the Second Amendment, but this does not really equate to specifics such as brand as you attempt to argue here.

The part you are not logically showing is how driving is covered either separately as a Right, or under the blanket of another Right. You may believe it in your heart, and so may marshaul. Declaring it as such by either of you without basis other than opinion, or insulting others in your attempts to sway opinion to your chosen belief does not help you to get others to believe as you do.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

If you would just answer the questions, then the questions would not need to be repeated.

If you just read the previous 9 pages before opening your mouth, you wouldn't need to waste your energy making dumb posts.

Typical. Begin with an insult. :quirky

AWDstylez wrote:

1.
right to the pursuit of happiness - the right to try to find happiness
human right - (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)



Good luck pursuing any happiness is this modern life without the ability to drive. Ask anyone that's lost their license how much happiness they're able to pursue (they sure aren't pursuing it for a long distance) or how functional they are in society. Consider how this country would function (more likecease tofunction) if the government decided, tomorrow, to remove this magically "granted privilege" of driving, then tell me how much happiness you would be able to pursue and how much liberty you would have.

Plenty of people do just that. I would be interested to see statistics on how many people in New York City pursue happiness without ever learning how to drive. You fall to your old argument that the only way we can be happy is to drive? Really now, how can you be that illogical? I feel sorry for all those people whose lives are so empty that they must drive to be happy.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

Sorry, major malfunction in transmitting.I'll try again.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Where did you get this:

Do you understand what a "natural" right is? If you do not, don't expect me to "cite" it for you. Don't jump into a discussion amongst PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics and start crying for people to "cite" definitions for you, otherwisethey're wrong. YOU go do your research to make sure you understand the topic before opening your mouth.

LOL, now this is simply rich! If "PhD level engineers" present in public as you do with continual insult, I would prefer the company of "common folk." :quirky
Beyond that, do you mean to imply that you are a PhD in the topic of discussion? Pray tell, what might be your area of learned knowledge?

AWDstylez wrote:

Do you or do you not belive in the existance of "natural" rights?

I "belive" that the "existance" of dictionaries and spell-checkers is lost on you.
Your "PhD" wasn't in English?


AWDstylez wrote:

If you do, the burden of proof lies on people/governments to prove that acts of non-aggression are NOT rights. So, basically, if you believe in natural rights, this debate is over. The purden of proof is on the other side and they've already proved they can't handle it.

Now if you had said "purden of broof," at least you could claim it as a "spoonerism." As it stands, it simply shows you have poor attention to detail.


AWDstylez wrote:

If you do not believe in natural rights, then there is no basis for the Constitution simply "recognizing" pre-existing rights as the founders intended it to (the Constitution doesn't prove the right to free speech, nor does it "cite to authority" on the basis for the right, it simply acknowledges that it exists as part of space/time), because you don't believe in pre-existing rights. That means that the only rights that exist in your world are those enumerated in the Constitution or other law (that's why Marshaul and I have made that comment multiple times to the bafflement of the other side that fails at deducing this, or anything, really), and those rights only exist because the Constitution GRANTS them to us. NOW, in THIS world, the burden of proof is on people to prove that things ARE rights. Until proven to be a right, an act isa privaledge liable to be regulated at the government's wish and whim. THAT is the world you create when the burden of proof is onpeople to prove the existance of rights and THAT is why we keep making the comments that we do that the opposition just can't seem to grasp a hold of.

What definition of "Natural Rights do you prefer? Which person at that link most mirrors your view? Or, what definition of the term fits as you see it?


Pre-existing rights, inalienable, unalienable, or what-have-you, much of your position rests upon the personal view a person has upon the topic. One item you presented several times is a black/white "you are either with me, or with them." Either we agree that "driving is a right," or we only believe that the Constitution and written rights apply. The most accurate statement relevant to this discussion is that the US Constitution and BoR recognizes and enumerates some specific Rights. It also (as you and marshaul have pointed out) recognizes that the Rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not all-inclusive, and are not meant to deny other Rights that are not similarly enumerated. To you, this seems to mean anything that is not enumerated, and which also does not harm another. Is that how you see it?

If that is how you see it, that is still only your opinion on the topic, and is not the be-all end-all statement of how things actually are. You can believe it in your soul, and you can agree with marshaul that it is so, but this does not create it as fact.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Where did you get this:

Do you understand what a "natural" right is? If you do not, don't expect me to "cite" it for you. Don't jump into a discussion amongst PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics and start crying for people to "cite" definitions for you, otherwisethey're wrong. YOU go do your research to make sure you understand the topic before opening your mouth.

What authority had to be cited to make gravity true? Who had to PROVE it true before it became a law of nature?

Do you or do you not belive in the existance of "natural" rights?

If you do, the burden of proof lies on people/governments to prove that acts of non-aggression are NOT rights. So, basically, if you believe in natural rights, this debate is over. The purden of proof is on the other side and they've already proved they can't handle it.

Now on the other hand, if you DO NOT believe in natural rights...

If you do not believe in natural rights, then there is no basis for the Constitution simply "recognizing" pre-existing rights as the founders intended it to (the Constitution doesn't prove the right to free speech, nor does it "cite to authority" on the basis for the right, it simply acknowledges that it exists as part of space/time), because you don't believe in pre-existing rights. That means that the only rights that exist in your world are those enumerated in the Constitution or other law (that's why Marshaul and I have made that comment multiple times to the bafflement of the other side that fails at deducing this, or anything, really), and those rights only exist because the Constitution GRANTS them to us. NOW, in THIS world, the burden of proof is on people to prove that things ARE rights. Until proven to be a right, an act isa privaledge liable to be regulated at the government's wish and whim. THAT is the world you create when the burden of proof is onpeople to prove the existance of rights and THAT is why we keep making the comments that we do that the opposition just can't seem to grasp a hold of.

Here it's real easy, I'll do it for you.

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Natural rights apply to everyone everywhere. Does a person living in theAmazon rain forest have a right to drive on our roads?

Don't jump into a discussion amongst PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics and start crying for people to "cite" definitions for you, otherwisethey're wrong

I'll keep that in mind when I'm on the "PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics" forums. I would hope that they would be able to cite reliable sources when challenged about statements that they make.

By the way what exactly is your PhD in? I would think that you would have to pass High School English to get one of those. "PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics" what the heck is that anyway?

YOU go do your research to make sure you understand the topic before opening your mouth.

I have posted several sources during this debate, where are yours? Why should I be expected to do your homework as well as mine? I have more citations for your argument that you do.

What authority had to be cited to make gravity true? Who had to PROVE it true before it became a law of nature?

Only in your world does gravity = right to drive.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

This is inarguable FACT the nature of "natural rights," if it were not so, they would not be natural rights. So the basis of the statement issound. Now address the issue...

And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.

SNIP...

This is a perfect example of the problem.

Just in your declaration you express 3 specific opinions -

1) This is inarguable FACT

2) if it were not so, they would not be natural rights.

3) So the basis of the statement issound.

What makes this "Inarguable fact"? Who says so? Without knowing who has declared this "fact" there is no way to judge the quality of YOUR assessment that it is inarguable. The very existence of natural rights is discussed regularly in the courts. There is even discussion in the SCOTUS on this issue. Weather you agree withthe concept of natural rightsnot, it is not a universally accepted concept that they exist and it is therefore a questionable assertion (opinion) that they do and this is yet another of your opinions that YOU think we are just supposed to take on faith. You then declare that the basis of the statement is sound. Why is it sound? If either of the previous two items are shown to be false then the third is false as well. This is why sources are important, and it is a consistent weakness of the cascade logic you are attempting to foist off on us.

Gordie has said this best. I have reread the entire thread and there is not one single citation from either stylez or Marshaul that address the topic of DWI laws justifying firearms regulations, which is the falsehood I have been arguing against from the start. I did find one post that contained some citations that were mostly to the opinions of other individuals on other discussion forums. That kind of crap just does not cut it.

Writeme has stated this about as well as anyone here when he says in effect, that you are trying to convert a method of exercise into a basic right.

Stylez posts these equations and declares them as decided facts-


"Right = keep and bear arms... also includes Right = own and carry a SIG P220 (or any other "arm" your heart desires)

Right = free speech... also includes Right = internet blogging (or any other method of "speech" you choose to utilize.

Right = move about freely... also includes Right = driving (or any method of moving about your heart desires)."


What you have in fact done here is confused RIGHTS with methods just as we have been telling you for 10 pages. If methods are included in the rights themselves as you opine they are, then why are you arguing that driving is a separate and distinct right. The only logical conclusion a person can reach is that driving must in fact NOT be included or there would be no need to identify it as a severable right as you have asserted.

I tried to explain to you over 7 pages ago that there are three elements to consider here and while they are intertwined they are distinct. First are RIGHTS, then there are METHODS of exercise, and finally there are Instrumentalities. You have confused the three as is obvious from your equations.

As I tried to explain to you, even if we accept that driving might be a right, it is still NOT recognised as such by the government, and it is therefore NOT an equal comparison with Firearms regulation. It is the fallacy of saying that DWI laws justify regulating firearms that I have argued from the beginning.

Then along comes Marshaul claiming that I have been arguing about John Lott. I have never mentioned John Lott in this entire thread.I may have mentioned Lott is a post over a year ago, but other then that I cannot remember every mentioning him.So Marshauls contention that I have is not dissimilar to his alteration of posts to reflect statements that people never made. In my view that dishonesty coupled with his inability or unwillingnessto post a single link to a single source to back up any of his positions in this discussion completely discredits him.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Where did you get this:

Do you understand what a "natural" right is? If you do not, don't expect me to "cite" it for you. Don't jump into a discussion amongst PhD level engineersabout nuclear physics and start crying for people to "cite" definitions for you, otherwisethey're wrong. YOU go do your research to make sure you understand the topic before opening your mouth.

SNIP...

What crap. Get over yourself. You are just pissed because you are not smart enough to prove your opinion.

He unless you are talking about people OTHER than you and marshaul, there are NO PHDs in this discussion. Certainly if you hold that degree you should get your money back.

The fact is if you have been reading the posts instead of flying off at the handle you would notice he has been in this from WAY back. The fact is that his request for citation is exactly on target and you can;t provide one because you have no idea how to support your position.

In fact you did not even understand what he was asking for you to back up with a citation. GO back and reread his original post and see if when you actually read it you can figure out what he is asking for.

Once again you resort to the argument of a person who has run out of ideas and start calling people names.

Here we have the potential for a discussion of some value, and the quality of that discussion is totally ruined because two participants do not have the ability ti understand the need for proper citations to support their arguments.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

shad0wfax wrote:

marshaul wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I understand and agree that the methods are not recognized in cases such as freedom of movement, and that this is different than the enumeration by the BoR in re the 2nd Amendment.
Marsh and AWD refuse to consider that position, as it negates their whole argument.  If they would recognize that obvious difference, we could have stopped about 6 pages ago.  :quirky

I've been admitting since page 6 that my position is not enumerated like the 2nd, and not recognized by the courts. My whole argument is (and has always been) that the standing precedent is wrong, not that it agrees with me.

Ding ding ding! Winner!

 

Sorry AWDstylez, I already won, and I've become bored, so I'm done with this thread.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Driving is one method of movement. Walking is another method. Bicycling is yet another. Riding a horse is another one.
Movement is the right or freedom.
Driving, walking, bicycling, horseback riding are not separate rights. They are possible methods that an individual may choose.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is both Right, and Method. This is where you have lost logical focus when you attempt to equate driving with carrying a firearm.

Wrong.



"Arms" is the right. A GUN is a method. A SIG is a specifc gun. What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "ARMS" is protected as part of the overall right, from guns to swords to slingshots.



"Move freely about" is the right. DRIVING is a method. A CIVIC is a specific method. What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "moving freely about" is protected as part of the overall right, from horse to bike to car to walking on foot.





Let me break it down AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN so someone of your intelligence (or gross lack thereof) can understand it.

Declartion: All electronics are banned from use



Computers are electronics... so are printers, digital cameras, TV's, etc etc.

HP is a type of computer. Sony is a type of camera. Samsung is a type of TV.



Thus:

All HP computers are banned.

All Sony cameras are banned.

All Samsung TV's are banned.



These all fall under the umbrella of "electronics". Ifthe umbrella group is banned, it's logical to even a small child that everything that falls within that group is banned specifically.



"Moving about freely" is a right. If the umbrella group containing methods of "moving about freely" is a right, it's logical to even a small child that every methodthat falls within that group is also protected.



If you choose to reject that, which you no doubt will, it's all part of the "wear them down" style, we can go back to the importance of driving.

"Moving about FREELY" is not possible in the modern world without a car. You can most certainly move about, but you cannot move about FREELY. It goes back to...

1.
right to the pursuit of happiness - the right to try to find happiness
human right - (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)



Good luck pursuing any happiness is this modern life without the ability to drive. Ask anyone that's lost their license how much happiness they're able to pursue (they sure aren't pursuing it for a long distance) or how functional they are in society. Consider how this country would function (more likecease tofunction) if the government decided, tomorrow, to remove this magically "granted privilege" of driving, then tell me how much happiness you would be able to pursue and how much liberty you would have.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Each of us can choose a specific caliber or make/model of firearm to exercise the 2nd amendment right, but stating that we have a right to a SIG of specific make/model is not logical. Restriction of the 2nd amendment by limiting us to specific make/models or calibers (or classes) of firearms violates the articulated "common use" meaning of the Second Amendment, but this does not really equate to specifics such as brand as you attempt to argue here.

Again, semantics game.



Bring on the AWB, you have no "right" to own those guns. "They're just methods" and when those "methods" are taken away, you'll have plenty more "methods" remaining so the right isn't being violated. Now we're back to you carrying a slingshot, all over a semantics argument.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Plenty of people do just that. I would be interested to see statistics on how many people in New York City pursue happiness without ever learning how to drive. You fall to your old argument that the only way we can be happy is to drive? Really now, how can you be that illogical? I feel sorry for all those people whose lives are so empty that they must drive to be happy.

The entire country is not a city. You can cry and whine all you want, the vast majority of this country could not function without a car. To state otherwise is laughable to anyone with a brain.

Your entire "arugment" hangs on the fact that people can "move FREELY about" without a car, and, hell, even that this country would continue to function if people were unable to drive... yet all you keep referencing is cities with widespread mass transist systems where NO ONE OWNS A CAR ANYWAY, thus there wouldalmost noeffect from a driving ban.No one ever said people inthecitywere the problem, hell, it's easier to NOT have a car in the city. What about the rest of the country?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

As long as you cling to a false presumption of what constitutes "arms," you will have your logical fallout. This is a good time for you do do some research to provide backing for such presumption. To equate "gun" as under a blanket that includes other items that YOU choose to include is false. To then conclude that "car" is under a blanket of freedom of movement is subsequently false. Until you realize this, you will continue to provide a failed argument.


If cars are banned, you will still be able to move freely about. You draw a false conclusion if you believe such.


AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Driving is one method of movement. Walking is another method. Bicycling is yet another. Riding a horse is another one.
Movement is the right or freedom.
Driving, walking, bicycling, horseback riding are not separate rights. They are possible methods that an individual may choose.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is both Right, and Method. This is where you have lost logical focus when you attempt to equate driving with carrying a firearm.

Wrong.



"Arms" is the right. A GUN is a method. A SIG is a specifc gun. What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "ARMS" is protected as part of the overall right, from guns to swords to slingshots.



"Move freely about" is the right. DRIVING is a method. A CIVIC is a specific method. What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "moving freely about" is protected as part of the overall right, from horse to bike to car to walking on foot.





Let me break it down AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN so someone of your intelligence (or gross lack thereof) can understand it.

Declartion: All electronics are banned from use



Computers are electronics... so are printers, digital cameras, TV's, etc etc.

HP is a type of computer. Sony is a type of camera. Samsung is a type of TV.



Thus:

All HP computers are banned.

All Sony cameras are banned.

All Samsung TV's are banned.



These all fall under the umbrella of "electronics". Ifthe umbrella group is banned, it's logical to even a small child that everything that falls within that group is banned specifically.



"Moving about freely" is a right. If the umbrella group containing methods of "moving about freely" is a right, it's logical to even a small child that every methodthat falls within that group is also protected.



If you choose to reject that, which you no doubt will, it's all part of the "wear them down" style, we can go back to the importance of driving.

"Moving about FREELY" is not possible in the modern world without a car. You can most certainly move about, but you cannot move about FREELY. It goes back to...

1.
right to the pursuit of happiness - the right to try to find happiness
human right - (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)



Good luck pursuing any happiness is this modern life without the ability to drive. Ask anyone that's lost their license how much happiness they're able to pursue (they sure aren't pursuing it for a long distance) or how functional they are in society. Consider how this country would function (more likecease tofunction) if the government decided, tomorrow, to remove this magically "granted privilege" of driving, then tell me how much happiness you would be able to pursue and how much liberty you would have.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

As long as you cling to a false presumption of what constitutes "arms," you will have your logical fallout. This is a good time for you do do some research to provide backing for such presumption. To equate "gun" as under a blanket that includes other items that YOU choose to include is false. To then conclude that "car" is under a blanket of freedom of movement is subsequently false. Until you realize this, you will continue to provide a failed argument.

You still don't get it, do you.



EVEN IF I throw you a bone on "gun" vs "arm". That STILL leaves the ability to ban SIG as a specific gun, leaving you every other brand of "gun" to choose from, thus not infringing your right to own a "gun," but still limiting it. Now watch as I go and ban each brand of "gun," while still leaving you with nothing but that P3AT, thus meeting the requirement for you to be able to keep and bear a "gun". It's not my fault you don't like the "method".

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

If cars are banned, you will still be able to move freely about. You draw a false conclusion if you believe such.

Citation please. You made a statement, provided a citation. Hell, just make a logical argument to back that up. "Just because you believe it doesn't make it fact." :quirky

Have you ever known any that had their license suspended?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If cars are banned, you will still be able to move freely about. You draw a false conclusion if you believe such.

Citation please. You made a statement, provided a citation. Hell, just make a logical argument to back that up. "Just because you believe it doesn't make it fact." :quirky

Have you ever known any that had their license suspended?

Frankly, your call for me to cite is premature. I have simply provided the level of citation that you provided. I countered.


Now if you DO contend that I need to cite, you would fail. If cars are banned, you WILL still be able to move freely about. How can you not move freely about? You have feet. You have public transportation. You have bicycles. You have horses.

Banning cars will not prevent free movement. I have stated such before, and it IS a logical statement. Should you wish, I suppose you could attempt to show how we cannot move about if cars are banned, but really, that argument is dead before it gets out of the garage.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

As long as you cling to a false presumption of what constitutes "arms," you will have your logical fallout. This is a good time for you do do some research to provide backing for such presumption. To equate "gun" as under a blanket that includes other items that YOU choose to include is false. To then conclude that "car" is under a blanket of freedom of movement is subsequently false. Until you realize this, you will continue to provide a failed argument.

You still don't get it, do you.



EVEN IF I throw you a bone on "gun" vs "arm". That STILL leaves the ability to ban SIG as a specific gun, leaving you every other brand of "gun" to choose from, thus not infringing your right to own a "gun," but still limiting it. Now watch as I go and ban each brand of "gun," while still leaving you with nothing but that P3AT, thus meeting the requirement for you to be able to keep and bear a "gun". It's not my fault you don't like the "method".

You still do not get the fallacy you present.

A gun, or "arm," as in common use at the time, and currently in use is a device that propels a projectile by means of an explosion. This is how they worked in the time of our founders, and it is how they currently work. This is not how walking and driving are equivalent.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Banning cars will not prevent free movement. I have stated such before, and it IS a logical statement. Should you wish, I suppose you could attempt to show how we cannot move about if cars are banned, but really, that argument is dead before it gets out of the garage.

Just so everyone can see how truly idiotic you are, can you confirm for me that what you're arguing is that this nation would function just fine if people were not allowed to drive?



You're confusingthe ability to MOVE with the ability to MOVE FREELY. You cannot pursue a happy life and you are not liberated in this modern world without a car. This isn't even to mention the fact that this entire country's economywould collapse if people were limited to bikes, horses, and walking.



You also can't seem to understand that a horse is a self-propelled vehicle for transport and towing, exactly what a car is. As marshaul has ALREADY brought up multiple times, a horse and a car haveas much in common as a black powder muzzle loader and an AR. Rights evolve with the means to exercise them, the first is a great example of this.

What you're telling me is that if someone develops a hang-held rail gun, the American people have no right to keep and bear it because it doesn't use explosive propellant. So 50-100 years from now when guns no longer use explosives to move the bullet or everyone has lasers or some new technology, the American people are going to be SOL on keeping and bearing the arms of the time. That's what you're telling me. You base this off what?

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If cars are banned, you will still be able to move freely about. You draw a false conclusion if you believe such.

Citation please. You made a statement, provided a citation. Hell, just make a logical argument to back that up. "Just because you believe it doesn't make it fact." :quirky

Have you ever known any that had their license suspended?

I had a suspended license many years ago for speeding violations. My movements were not legally restricted in any way. If I wanted to go to the mall, a movie, the grocery store, wherever, I could. I could go anywhere that I could go before I lost my license, I just couldn't drive myself there. I chose not to go as often, not because of any restriction imposed on me by the courts, but because I was too lazy to walk 5 miles to town. It was my choice. If I had wanted to go, I could, and I did when I got a ride with someone else.

AWDstylez wrote:

The entire country is not a city. You can cry and whine all you want, the vast majority of this country could not function without a car. To state otherwise is laughable to anyone with a brain.

You can cry all you want about not being able to get around without a car. That would be your problem, not a violation of your rights. You choose not to take a bus, cab, or hitch a ride with friends. You choose not to walk, ride a bike, or turn somersaults, all of which would be a legal way to "move freely about" without a drivers license or car.

Did you ever consider that we live so far apart from things that we need, not because we have to, but because most of us can. The reason that people in large cities frequently do not own cars is that everything that they need is within walking distance. The car becomes an inconvenience that is just not worth the trouble.

Suburbs didn't come about until after the advent of the car. Before that, unless you were wealthy, or a farmer, you most likely lived in town, within walking distance of everything you needed. The car allowed us to spread out and still be within a reasonable distanceof our daily requirements. Study the history of our country's growth and watch when sprawl occurred. If the car had never been invented, most of us would still be living in large population centers.

Because you, and many others of us, have put ourselves in the position that being without a car would be inconvenient, doesn't make driving a right.

AWDstylez wrote:

"Arms" is the right. A GUN is a method. A SIG is a specifc gun. What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "ARMS" is protected as part of the overall right, from guns to swords to slingshots.

2A: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right articulated here is the action of keeping and bearing arms. Keeping and bearing (actions) of arms (objects) are protected by the 2A. The way that these arms (objects) are used (different actions) are not fully protected and can be regulated.

You can't discharge a firearm in a congested area. This is a legal restriction on the use of an object that you have the right to own.

AWDstylez wrote:

"Move freely about" is the right. DRIVING is a method. A CIVIC is a specific method.

You have a right to move freely (action)about (within theconfines of the law regarding certain private properties and government facilities), not every method of performing this movement is protected. As long as there are alternative methods in place to move about, you can choose to use one of the alternatives, or you can choose not to move about.

AWDstylez wrote:

What you don't get is that everything under the umbrella of "moving freely about" is protected as part of the overall right, from horse to bike to car to walking on foot.

What you don't get is that you still haven't shown any evidence, aside from your opinion, that this is true.

You have also contended that the use of the Internet is a right under the 1A. I bet that you find out differently if you quit paying for Internet service.

I find it interesting that anything that you find important becomes a right to you. This is an example of the "entitlement mentality" that is destroying our country.

Also, you really should use spell check, it won't catch every mistake, but it will get most of them. This is not a put down, I freely admit that I use it regularly, and for good reason. Just something to consider.