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

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

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 still won't answer a question with any thing solid. I guess that since the country would not function well without electricity, that is a right too.

Let that argument go to the billing department and see where it gets you.:lol:

You really need to be more careful of your arguments before you call people names, you might make yourself look "idiotic".:uhoh:

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

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.

Your post reeks of fail.


There is a massive difference from something being secured as a right and something being an entitlement.

I have a RIGHT to bear a gun. The government has no obligation toprovideme with a gun.

I have a RIGHT to drive. The government has no obligation toprovide me with a car.



Remove the fail and try again.



Your "moving about freely" still relies on two major things, bumming rides from friends and public transportation.



If driving is banned, you won't be bumming rides from anyone.

If public transportation is what you're limited to, you're SOL and only going where the government chooses (if you're lucky enough to even have public transportation). And guess what, they decided they don't want guns on their buses.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

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.

The people proposing the AWB, or any gun bans, say the same thing. DC used this exact logic for their old ban and for their new ban.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

Your post reeks of fail.


There is a massive difference from something being secured as a right and something being an entitlement.

I have a RIGHT to bear a gun. The government has no obligation toprovideme with a gun.

I have a RIGHT to drive. The government has no obligation toprovide me with a car.



Remove the fail and try again.



Your "moving about freely" still relies on two major things, bumming rides from friends and public transportation.



If driving is banned, you won't be bumming rides from anyone.

If public transportation is what you're limited to, you're SOL and only going where the government chooses (if you're lucky enough to even have public transportation). And guess what, they decided they don't want guns on their buses.

AWDstylez wrote:

If you want to play the semantics game too, I have no problem countering that.



Right = move freely about

Right exercise method = drive



Right = keep and bear arms

Right exercise method = own and carry a SIG P220



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

I stand corrected, you did not say that you believe that the Internet is a right. However, you have either proven our argument for us or you actually do believe everything that you printedin the post . This is an example of your "logic?".

You have put your whole theory right there for all to see. You display the error of your argument right there yourself.

How is "Right = drive" under your logic different from "Right = blog on Internet"?

Semantics games cut both ways. That is why I try to avoid them.

AWDstylez wrote:

I have a RIGHT to drive.

You have yet to show this.

AWDstylez wrote:

Your "moving about freely" still relies on two major things, bumming rides from friends and public transportation.

Talk about reeking of fail. I also said that I could walk,but was too lazy to do so. That is my problem, not the governments or anyone else's.

AWDstylez wrote:

If public transportation is what you're limited to, you're SOL and only going where the government chooses (if you're lucky enough to even have public transportation). And guess what, they decided they don't want guns on their buses.

Fail again,I still have my feet. UnlessI am incapable of walking,I can go whereI want.

 

[SFCRetired]

imported post

 

[wrightme]

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

While I found this debate most interesting, I cannot help but wonder if any of the participants in this very public debate have considered that the anti-gun elements are probably chortling with glee over this evidence of dissension within our ranks.

I love public debate and have been known to participate in quite a few. What I absolutely do not like is when that debate become acrimonious and descends into comments about intelligence or lack thereof.

Yes, I do know you (general "you") have the right to freely express yourself and I absolutely defend your right to do so. What I do ask of each and every one of you is that you consider your words carefully in light of my first paragraph.

I have no doubt about that.

They also likely chortle with glee that a supposed proponent of the 2nd amendment such as AWD fits right in with their entitle and regulate mindset.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

The people proposing the AWB, or any gun bans, say the same thing. DC used this exact logic for their old ban and for their new ban.

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 D.C. gun bans effectively removed guns from the possibility of being used for defense. This is unconstitutional.

This is the difference betweenarms and cars. Arms are specifically mentioned in the BOR. No right to any specificform of transportation of any kind is mentioned in the Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong on this. (Correction will require citation. If no citation, then it is opinion and therefore, invalid.)

Can you show anything that compares to this in regards to travel by automobile, or travel in general?

marshaul

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

This is hilarious,:lol: it reminds me of "Baghdad Bob" declaring victory over the "American invaders"while the Marines were rollingdown the very streets ofBaghdad, with the Iraqi forces in full retreat or in hiding.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

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.

Maybe not (although I believe you're mistaken), but that isn't how it happened anyway.

Our highway system didn't arise spontaneously. Government used force to build it (not in every case, but generally speaking).

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

SFCRetired wrote:

While I found this debate most interesting, I cannot help but wonder if any of the participants in this very public debate have considered that the anti-gun elements are probably chortling with glee over this evidence of dissension within our ranks.

I love public debate and have been known to participate in quite a few.  What I absolutely do not like is when that debate become acrimonious and descends into comments about intelligence or lack thereof.

Yes, I do know you (general "you") have the right to freely express yourself and I absolutely defend your right to do so.  What I do ask of each and every one of you is that you consider your words carefully in light of my first paragraph.

I have no doubt about that.

They also likely chortle with glee that a supposed proponent of the 2nd amendment such as AWD fits right in with their entitle and regulate mindset.

At least he's consistent. With your viewpoint, all it would have taken was one vote different for Heller and then, oops, that's it, no more RKBA.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

This is hilarious,:lol: it reminds me of "Baghdad Bob" declaring victory over the "American invaders" while the Marines were rolling down the very streets of Baghdad, with the Iraqi forces in full retreat or in hiding.

Except for the part where this argument has been going in circles for pages. It's a total waste of time. And besides, someone else rang the bell for me.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

wrightme wrote:

SFCRetired wrote:

While I found this debate most interesting, I cannot help but wonder if any of the participants in this very public debate have considered that the anti-gun elements are probably chortling with glee over this evidence of dissension within our ranks.

I love public debate and have been known to participate in quite a few. What I absolutely do not like is when that debate become acrimonious and descends into comments about intelligence or lack thereof.

Yes, I do know you (general "you") have the right to freely express yourself and I absolutely defend your right to do so. What I do ask of each and every one of you is that you consider your words carefully in light of my first paragraph.

I have no doubt about that.

They also likely chortle with glee that a supposed proponent of the 2nd amendment such as AWD fits right in with their entitle and regulate mindset.

At least he's consistent. With your viewpoint, all it would have taken was one vote different for Heller and then, oops, that's it, no more RKBA.

He is consistently for regulation of an enumerated Right, and consistently for creation of Right by Decree. He also consistently insults others as opposed to discussing topics honestly.

I see you have taken the route of "can't win, so I will simply declare victory." Nice try, but it really does not work that way.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

Maybe not (although I believe you're mistaken), but that isn't how it happened anyway.

Our highway system didn't arise spontaneously. Government used force to build it (not in every case, but generally speaking).

I am sure you will provide ample citation for your opinion, eh?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

This is hilarious,:lol: it reminds me of "Baghdad Bob" declaring victory over the "American invaders"while the Marines were rollingdown the very streets ofBaghdad, with the Iraqi forces in full retreat or in hiding.

Except for the part where this argument has been going in circles for pages. It's a total waste of time. And besides, someone else rang the bell for me.

Really? you better get moving before the bus leaves without you. Got someone to pick you up?





Now that I have begun to stoop to your and AWD's level with insult instead of debate, how about we take the high road of "agree to disagree?" Neither of you has been able to prove that driving is a right, and I have been unable to get either of you to see the illogic of your argument.

I am forthwith done with this thread. Should either you or AWD choose to present an actual logical argument that holds up to scrutiny, we might be able to have a reasonable discussion on the topic. But, the penchant of both of you for insult as opposed to discussion, we really are at impasse.

see ya.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post


Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

The people proposing the AWB, or any gun bans, say the same thing. DC used this exact logic for their old ban and for their new ban.

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 D.C. gun bans effectively removed guns from the possibility of being used for defense. This is unconstitutional.

This is the difference betweenarms and cars. Arms are specifically mentioned in the BOR. No right to any specificform of transportation of any kind is mentioned in the Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong on this. (Correction will require citation. If no citation, then it is opinion and therefore, invalid.)

Can you show anything that compares to this in regards to travel by automobile, or travel in general?

marshaul

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

This is hilarious,:lol: it reminds me of "Baghdad Bob" declaring victory over the "American invaders"while the Marines were rollingdown the very streets ofBaghdad, with the Iraqi forces in full retreat or in hiding.

Gordie - I tried to show them this fact a lot of pages ago. Even if the argument of natural rights is brought into play here, the fact is that the right to arms has been magnified by its specific mention in the BOR and the particular language you highlighted above. These two points clearly put the right to arms on a different footing from other rights. But certainly it is on a different level of recognition from DWI restrictions, which stylez believes justify regulation of arms. Most people who can read the language, understand that no matter how you look at other rights, restrictions that may exist on those others rights cannot be compared under the protective language of "Shall not be infringed"

The problem here is that you are arguing with someone who actually believes that if you take his car you have made him a paraplegic, unable to walk, ride a bike, use a moped, or reach out for other means of transport. In fact this country did very well for about 150 years without cars. People used private funds to build roads, and proscriptive easements were used to route them so the issue of land taking did not make it impossible.

In Virginia the state took all of the existing secondary and primary roads into the state system. In the 1950s Eisenhower called for the construction of the interstate highway system. Before all of that a trip from Virginia to Missouri was an adventure involving paved, dirt, and all weather (gravel) roads, but it was done very often by a lot of people. Eventually states improved the roads within their borders, but up until the 1950s states like Virginia still had a lot of roads that were NOT state maintained.

The bottom line is that it was the development of the car that allowed the urban sprawl we have today, and it was development of the car that created the need for the paved road system we have today.

While the loss of driving privileges, or even the loss of access to a car is inconvenient, That is the result of structuring ones life to be dependant on that single mode of movement. However, it is not the end of all possible movement and it does NOT place any limit on a person who is intelligent enough to avoid being paralyzed by the loss. I still haven't seen an Amish-man behind the wheel of his new Honda, but I sure have seen a lot of them hundreds of miles from their homes. Perhaps they are secretlybeing teleportedby aliens.


After all teleportation is a right.

I am with Writeme. These two refuse to acknowledge any positions except their own, they reject any acceptance of the rules of debate accepted by reasonable people, and they are so far beyond any possible ideas for arguing their positions that all they can do isfire off insults.There are better people on this forum to interact with.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

Maybe not (although I believe you're mistaken), but that isn't how it happened anyway.

Our highway system didn't arise spontaneously. Government used force to build it (not in every case, but generally speaking).

I am sure you will provide ample citation for your opinion, eh? 

Are you serious? You can't do a google search for "History of American highways"?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Government roads and highways have been built using anticompetitive means and through the use of force (federal funds are tax monies which are appropriated by force), and are tantamount to an effective government monopoly on the most common (made so by this very action of government) form of transportation.

I'm genuinely confused as to why you demand a citation in this case.

If government didn't build roads, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since government did, use of them for personal conveyance should be considered a right (which it may even be in certain circumstances), and operation of the only class of device practicable for use on many (most) of these roads (that is, motor vehicles) should also be a right -- which of course doesn't mean government has to actively enable individuals to be able to operate or have access to these devices, only that is has to not prevent them from doing so once they are so capable of their own accord.


This is my position. It always has been. You cannot refute it because it is not a matter of "authoritative", documentable, verifiable "fact", it is more an opinion of, or a rational conclusion regarding the logical foundation of the concept human rights. We must agree to disagree.

And we are at an impasse, but not because I declared you to be thick-headed several pages back. :quirky (For which I will apologize if you like.)

We at an impasse because you will not recognize that this discussion was over and already "at an impasse" once I pointed out that I agree there is no authoritative support for my position, and that very lack of support is in itself an object of criticism necessarily concomitant to my position.

And we are also at an impasse because I will not recognize that a right not does exist just because I can not "prove" through legal history that it does exist, because I define rights by way of the nonaggression principle and the idea that everyone has the fundamental right to do anything which doesn't impede on another's fundamental right to do the same.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The problem here is that you are arguing with someone who actually believes that if you take his car you have made him a paraplegic, unable to walk, ride a bike, use a moped, or reach out for other means of transport.  In fact this country did very well for about 150 years without cars.  People used private funds to build roads, and proscriptive easements were used to route them so the issue of land taking did not make it impossible. 

The problem here is that you haven't explained why, then, the government may not declare use of the internet to not be a right, since free speech may after all still be accomplished through archaic means. Please explain this inconsistency clearly, directly, and articulately. In both cases, the right is enumerated (to speak freely and to assemble), but in neither case is the means specified. Whence the inconsistency?


Hawkflyer wrote:

The bottom line is that it was the development of the car that allowed the urban sprawl we have today, and it was development of the car that created the need for the paved road system we have today.

Well, since the internet bears an identical causal relationship to the need for people to reach their intended audience through electronic means (since archaic media no longer suffice for a good portion of any free speaker's intended audience), that should be a justification for not extending free speech to the internet. Since, after all, the internet was a causal factor in the shift away from the archaic media which have a legal history of 1st amendment protection.

I'm not trying to be snide; can you please explain how this makes any sense?



By the way, when did I insult you? That seem to be a major object of criticism for something which I don't recall doing.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

oops, sorry

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Thank you for the citation. Finally. I saw no references to "government force," but I did see reference to public outcry causing government action. This sounds more like "public forced the government," which is the opposite of your contention.


marshaul wrote:

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

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.

Maybe not (although I believe you're mistaken), but that isn't how it happened anyway.

Our highway system didn't arise spontaneously. Government used force to build it (not in every case, but generally speaking).

I am sure you will provide ample citation for your opinion, eh?

Are you serious? You can't do a google search for "History of American highways"?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Government roads and highways have been built using anticompetitive means and through the use of force (federal funds are tax monies which are appropriated by force), and are tantamount to an effective government monopoly on the most common (made so by this very action of government) form of transportation.

I'm genuinely confused as to why you demand a citation in this case.

If government didn't build roads, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since government did, use of them for personal conveyance should be considered a right (which it may even be in certain circumstances), and operation of the only class of device practicable for use on many (most) of these roads (that is, motor vehicles) should also be a right -- which of course doesn't mean government has to actively enable individuals to be able to operate or have access to these devices, only that is has to not prevent them from doing so once they are so capable of their own accord.


This is my position. It always has been. You cannot refute it because it is not a matter of "authoritative", documentable, verifiable "fact", it is more an opinion of, or a rational conclusion regarding the logical foundation of the concept human rights. We must agree to disagree.

And we are at an impasse, but not because I declared you to be thick-headed several pages back. :quirky (For which I will apologize if you like.)

We at an impasse because you will not recognize that this discussion was over and already "at an impasse" once I pointed out that I agree there is no authoritative support for my position, and that very lack of support is in itself an object of criticism necessarily concomitant to my position.

And we are also at an impasse because I will not recognize that a right not does exist just because I can not "prove" through legal history that it does exist, because I define rights by way of the nonaggression principle and the idea that everyone has the fundamental right to do anything which doesn't impede on another's fundamental right to do the same.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

The problem here is that you are arguing with someone who actually believes that if you take his car you have made him a paraplegic, unable to walk, ride a bike, use a moped, or reach out for other means of transport. In fact this country did very well for about 150 years without cars. People used private funds to build roads, and proscriptive easements were used to route them so the issue of land taking did not make it impossible.

The problem here is that you haven't explained why, then, the government may not declare use of the internet to not be a right, since free speech may after all still be accomplished through archaic means. Please explain this inconsistency clearly, directly, and articulately. In both cases, the right is enumerated (to speak freely and to assemble), but in neither case is the means specified. Whence the inconsistency?


Hawkflyer wrote:

The bottom line is that it was the development of the car that allowed the urban sprawl we have today, and it was development of the car that created the need for the paved road system we have today.

Well, since the internet bears an identical causal relationship to the need for people to reach their intended audience through electronic means (since archaic media no longer suffice for a good portion of any free speaker's intended audience), that should be a justification for not extending free speech to the internet. Since, after all, the internet was a causal factor in the shift away from the archaic media which have a legal history of 1st amendment protection.

I'm not trying to be snide; can you please explain how this makes any sense?



By the way, when did I insult you? That seem to be a major object of criticism for something which I don't recall doing.

Not snide? Whatever. You now claim that the creation of the Internet created the need for it? Now this new creation is a Right because it is better than the mail? How does the creation of the internet make other methods "no longer suffice for a good portion of any free speaker's intended audience?" Interesting "logic."

But, I am done. You DID bring in some citation, which did not support your contention of "government force." You have not increased your skills re logical analysis and conclusion.

By the way, I cannot explain how your contention concerning the Internet makes sense. It doesn't.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Thank you for the citation.  Finally.  I saw no references to "government force," but I did see reference to public outcry causing government action.  This sounds more like "public forced the government," which is the opposite of your contention.

When the people "force" the government to do anything the government must use force to accomplish that something. What you're defending is the tyranny of the majority, or "democracy".