Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Need a better argument (Gun Control)

jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into. If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't pick and chose amendments that you feel are applicable, the right to bear arms is in there so it's supreme law of the land. If we felt it no longer held true we could repeal that amendment.
However since background checks failed to even make it out of the Senate I very highly doubt we'd ever repeal the second amendment.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:30:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also the 2nd amendment is protecting us from a tyrannical government,the threat still exists as it did in 1700's, the weapons have changed but the threat hasn't.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument employed by your mother is very weak, and a simple counter example demonstrates that:

"The first amendment was created in the 1700's. The people who wrote it couldn't possibly have foreseen the advent of radio, cinema, television, and the internet which can reach millions within seconds. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to regulate speech in those instances."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into. If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?

The people of that era were deprived of their liberties, oppressed, and massacred and by the British with their guns. You really want to argue that they don't know the dangers of firearms? You've got to be kidding me.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ask why. Then ask why again. Then again. Then again. Again. Again.

Pull a Munchausen's Trilemma on her.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:42:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ask why. Then ask why again. Then again. Then again. Again. Again.

Pull a Munchausen's Trilemma on her.
Why?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into.

Is the 2nd amendment obsolete?
http://www.guncite.com...

I'm proud to announce your mom doesn understand law.

1. Internet =|= speech because the founders never thought of it!
2. States rights don't exist because they never imagined there we region to be 50!
3. Now, liberal lawyer don b Kate's writes, "of the law review articles in the 1990s, 42 endorsed the standard model view [that its an individual right], only six dissented".
-->Gary Kleck and Don B Kate's "Armed: New perspectives on gun control".
--> http://www.uclalawreview.org...
--> this also talks about technology advances: http://www.independent.org...

If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

Probably false. The vast majority of Americans support some degree of gun rights, so a right to gun ownership probably would be instituted (though more restrictions could be imposed).

But of they did write it now, they would get expert opinion. Luckily, few experts (I can name only two credible ones) oppose gun rights. The rest would easily show guns benefit society.


I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:52:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into. If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?

Yes. The right to bear arms can be overturned with an additional amendment, but until than it cannot be infringed. It is our right to bear arms, just as we have a right to freedom of speech, and a right to practice what ever religion we want. One could argue that the founders could not foresee what the media would turn into, but that is not a legitimate argument for censorship.

The 2nd amendment in the 1700's gave us the right to keep cannons (artillery), and all other weapons of war. In the Federalist papers both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made clear that the main intent behind the 2nd amendment was to check a standing army, and a tyrannical federal government. It is part of the system of checks and balances.

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." ~ Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted....
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. " ~ Madison, Federalist Papers #46

Prior to the US Bill of Rights, many states had their own bill of rights, most of which include a right to bear arms. Here are a few examples;

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. " ~ Section 13 of the 1776 VA Bill of Rights

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." ~ Section 13 of the 1776 PA Bill of Rights

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent" A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state". Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature." ~ Section 10, 13, 24, and 25 of the 1784 NH Bill of Rights
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:56:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:54:21 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/18/2013 7:42:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ask why. Then ask why again. Then again. Then again. Again. Again.

Pull a Munchausen's Trilemma on her.
Why?

Cause it's fun and makes them look like an idiot.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 11:07:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:52:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into. If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?

Yes. The right to bear arms can be overturned with an additional amendment, but until than it cannot be infringed. It is our right to bear arms, just as we have a right to freedom of speech, and a right to practice what ever religion we want. One could argue that the founders could not foresee what the media would turn into, but that is not a legitimate argument for censorship.

The 2nd amendment in the 1700's gave us the right to keep cannons (artillery), and all other weapons of war. In the Federalist papers both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made clear that the main intent behind the 2nd amendment was to check a standing army, and a tyrannical federal government. It is part of the system of checks and balances.

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." ~ Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted....
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. " ~ Madison, Federalist Papers #46


Prior to the US Bill of Rights, many states had their own bill of rights, most of which include a right to bear arms. Here are a few examples;

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. " ~ Section 13 of the 1776 VA Bill of Rights

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." ~ Section 13 of the 1776 PA Bill of Rights

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent" A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state". Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature." ~ Section 10, 13, 24, and 25 of the 1784 NH Bill of Rights

So it was indeed, obsoleted then :D
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 11:18:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 7:26:15 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
I argue gun control with my Mom and after we go back and forth on the certain crime rates and and other stuff, we get to the second amendment, and she brings up this same argument which is:

"The Second Amendment was created in the late 1700's and is no longer applicable to today's society. People during that era couldn't see what guns would turn into. If the constitution was written today, there would be no second amendment"

I never come up with a good argument to retort this, and I end up looking stupid. DDO got any arguments against this?

Simple, she doesn't get to choose when Amendments are no longer needed. The Supreme Court does that. That's a stupid argument anyways. There will always be threats to personal safety.