Breaking: Shooting at Marysville, Washington High School

[churchmouse]

I saw this on the news last night. Set those kids up. This will become more common as the media hypes it up.

 

[jamil]

You mean because he essentially said "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand"....like I've heard on INGO many times?

The commenter is​ probably an ass, but we believer in gun rights need to think about what we say and whether we really mean it, sometimes.

Sometimes people can say we're saying, more than we're really saying.

 

[OakRiver]

Sometimes people can say we're saying, more than we're really saying.

What they are doing is this;
Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HoughMade]

Sometimes people can say we're saying, more than we're really saying.

I agree with that. Whenever WE say something like "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?", I'll just say it- WE sound ignorant. Now watch as people fight about what I am about to say...

There ARE limits of keeping and bearing arms. The limits which would be Constitutional should be based upon how the "right to keep and bear arms" was understood to exist at the time the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution. The "right to keep and bear arms" never existed in a vacuum and was never without limits. If there are truly NO LIMITS, then how is a person choosing to exercise their freedom to carry a molotov cocktail for self defense not within the Second Amendment? Wise, no....but total freedom means wisdom is irrelevant to legality.

The Second Amendment does not explicitly exclude toddler and preteens.
The Second Amendment does not explicitly exclude prisoners who are incarcerated.
The Second Amendment does not explicitly exclude the violently mentally ill.
The Second Amendment does not explicitly exclude anyone at any time in any situation.

If we are going to blindly and simplistically say "shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed", then that is what the Second Amendment means. Really?

If that's not what it means, stop saying it.

Say what you mean....not as catchty, but more accurate...and has the added benefit of not making us sound like idiots.

 

[jamil]

I agree with that. Whenever WE say something like "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?", I'll just say it- WE sound ignorant. Now watch as people fight about what I am about to say...

There ARE limits of keeping and bearing arms. The limits which would be Constitutional should be based upon how the "right to keep and bear arms" was understood to exist at the time the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution. The "right to keep and bear arms" never existed in a vacuum and was never without limits. If there are truly NO LIMITS, then how is a person choosing to exercise their freedom to carry a molotov cocktail for self defense not within the Second Amendment? Wise, no....but total freedom means wisdom is irrelevant to legality.

I know. Saying that alone makes us sound like the "gun toter" stereotype. Saying just that to anti gun people is not productive.

I wouldn't say there is never a circumstance or type of arm that can be regulated. The constitution allows placing some restrictions on that. Clearly the molotov cocktail for self defense is absurd. It's impractical and in most situations impossible to use in self defense without collateral damage. A toddler toting a gun to school for self defense is equally absurd.

You have the right to defend yourself but you don't have the right to do it in ways that are very likely to harm innocent people in the process. Those are the only kinds of restrictions that I think are constitutional.

When I invoke that phrase, I'm saying no more than this: the constitution does not leave room for dreaming up silly rules that do no more for society than to punish people who are causing no harm. Those kinds of laws infringe on what the constitution says shall not be infringed. I can see a right for society through its government to say you can't carry around a molotov cocktail in public for self defense. But society does not have a right through its government to prohibit people from carrying reasonable means to defend themselves or interfere with the choices of reasonable means.

How does banning the shoulder thing that goes up, make a particular firearm more likely to cause harm to innocents than a firearm without? How does banning the possession of an empty shell likely at all to cause anyone harm?

 

[rhino]

I'm never meeting anyone who invites me to lunch with a text message ever again.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know. Saying that alone makes us sound like the "gun toter" stereotype. Saying just that to anti gun people is not productive.

I wouldn't say there is never a circumstance or type of arm that can be regulated. The constitution allows placing some restrictions on that. Clearly the molotov cocktail for self defense is absurd. It's impractical and in most situations impossible to use in self defense without collateral damage. A toddler toting a gun to school for self defense is equally absurd.

You have the right to defend yourself but you don't have the right to do it in ways that are very likely to harm innocent people in the process. Those are the only kinds of restrictions that I think are constitutional.

When I invoke that phrase, I'm saying no more than this: the constitution does not leave room for dreaming up silly rules that do no more for society than to punish people who are causing no harm. Those kinds of laws infringe on what the constitution says shall not be infringed. I can see a right for society through its government to say you can't carry around a molotov cocktail in public for self defense. But society does not have a right through its government to prohibit people from carrying reasonable means to defend themselves or interfere with the choices of reasonable means.

How does banning the shoulder thing that goes up, make a particular firearm more likely to cause harm to innocents than a firearm without? How does banning the possession of an empty shell likely at all to cause anyone harm?

Where?

A Molotov cocktail used as a tool of self defense when you may harm people and property is foolish and criminal. But it should not be forbidden. Because using a rifle for self defense when living in an apartment complex could easily pose the threat for harming innocent people because of over penetration--It doesn't mean they ought to be regulated/banned because just as with a Molotov cocktail, there well maybe perfectly acceptable circumstances where they'd be the self defense tool of choice.

It seems to me the proper retort to the question about should X be allowed for people to use/posses should be as long as the user/owner is ready to accept the responsibility that inherently comes with owning and using X. All rights have, when exercised are accompanied with some responsibility. If you exercise it, you'd better be ready to accept the out come of your actions.