Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 13th, 2021, 7:33 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 11th, 2021, 10:22 pm With 8 billion people and a natural environment that's rapidly degrading, guns are looking ever more useful.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 12th, 2021, 12:44 pm That's a valid perspective, for sure. 🙂 But I wonder how easy it would be for us to kill enough of our fellows to make a significant difference? The very manufacture of 7,900,000,000 bullets could cripple our environment? 🤨

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 12th, 2021, 6:25 pm I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to go ;)

Not everyone. I thought a remainder of 100,000,000 should be more than sufficient to keep the NRA going. Don't you agree? 🤨

I think the NRA is doing a fine job keeping themselves going, cosied up with arms corporations and maintaining their appeal by riding the current US wave of extremism.

Alas, even removing half of the population a la Thanos is not enough. That would just brings us back to 1970s levels and away we'd go again. So a gun-based solution to population problems won't work any better than COVID. Guns do at least allow people with terminal illnesses to bypass the lack of dying-with-dignity laws. They are also useful for farmers, soldiers, sport shooters, police and security. When people feel the need a gun to stay safe, that says something about the state of their society.

I was suggesting a reduction from 8 billion to 100 million. Quite a bit more than half.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 13th, 2021, 2:15 pm I was suggesting a reduction from 8 billion to 100 million. Quite a bit more than half. ;)

Sometimes old trees need a hard pruning to rejuvenate :)

https://davesgarden.com/guides/articles ... ning-trees

If you stand opposed to The Second Amendment, formulate an argument that convinces Americans to repeal The Second Amendment, and then repeal The Second Amendment.

If you disagree with, or irrationally hate, Citizens that hold The Second Amendment dear, and feel compelled to oppress / revoke their Rights, then you are a strong argument for The Second Amendment.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 16th, 2021, 6:36 am If you stand opposed to The Second Amendment, formulate an argument that convinces Americans to repeal The Second Amendment, and then repeal The Second Amendment.

If you disagree with, or irrationally hate, Citizens that hold The Second Amendment dear, and feel compelled to oppress / revoke their Rights, then you are a strong argument for The Second Amendment.

Hate is certainly irrational and it isn’t helpful for any argument. Hating fellow citizens accomplishes nothing.

Disagreement is in another category, though, and it makes a strong argument for the First Amendment. To disagree with other citizens is to oppose their opinion, in this case on the Second Amendment.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 16th, 2021, 6:36 am If you stand opposed to The Second Amendment, formulate an argument that convinces Americans to repeal The Second Amendment, and then repeal The Second Amendment.

If you disagree with, or irrationally hate, Citizens that hold The Second Amendment dear, and feel compelled to oppress / revoke their Rights, then you are a strong argument for The Second Amendment.

OK how about removing a clause - so instead of:

'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 (amended) Amendment would read:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed'

Or a word substitution:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

Robert66 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2021, 3:19 am OK how about removing a clause - so instead of:

'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 (amended) Amendment would read:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed'

Or a word substitution:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

Simple answer: Get Congress to propose your new Amendment, and then get three fourths of State Legislatures to approve it, and then you can have what you want.

For 200-years, everyone in The United States understood completely, what The Founders intended by The Second Amendment - there was no distinction whatsoever as to who could own firearms or what firearms they could own. Only recently do we have a new group of experts endeavoring to reinvent what The Founders clearly intended.

Furthermore, the argument that The Founders were evil in their intentions is totally annihilated by The Founder's inclusion in The Constitution of a rational logical means for amending The Constitution, just the same as the inclusion of "all men are created equal" in The Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual end of slavery (enabled by England many years before America declared Independence) to the bane of the southern Democrats that went to war to perpetuate their right to own black humans like they were livestock.

Moral people do the right thing by choice - immoral people chose to do the wrong thing by choice. The argument that moral people should pay the price for what immoral people do, is irrational on a level that is incomprehensible to rational people. But then again, the America people of today are not the America people of yesteryear...

EDIT:

Moral people do the right thing by choice - immoral people do the wrong thing by choice. The argument that moral people should pay the price for what immoral people do, is irrational on a level that is incomprehensible to rational people. But then again, the America people of today are not the America people of yesteryear...

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 6:16 am

Simple answer: Get Congress to propose your new Amendment, and then get three fourths of State Legislatures to approve it, and then you can have what you want.

For 200-years, everyone in The United States understood completely, what The Founders intended by The Second Amendment - there was no distinction whatsoever as to who could own firearms or what firearms they could own. Only recently do we have a new group of experts endeavoring to reinvent what The Founders clearly intended.

Furthermore, the argument that The Founders were evil in their intentions is totally annihilated by The Founder's inclusion in The Constitution of a rational logical means for amending The Constitution, just the same as the inclusion of "all men are created equal" in The Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual end of slavery (enabled by England many years before America declared Independence) to the bane of the southern Democrats that went to war to perpetuate their right to own black humans like they were livestock.

Moral people do the right thing by choice - immoral people chose to do the wrong thing by choice. The argument that moral people should pay the price for what immoral people do, is irrational on a level that is incomprehensible to rational people. But then again, the America people of today are not the America people of yesteryear...

"All men are created equal" is not included in the Constiution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, written by slave-owner Thomas Jefferson.

By the way, although England did abolish slaver before we did, they also supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, mainly because their thriving textile industry depended on Confederate cotton.

The development of new technologies has clearly affected the Second Amendment. Does anyone think that the "arms" citizens have a "right to bear" should include nuclear bombs? If not, then we can work backwards and ban poison gas, tanks, machine guns, and (eventually) any firearms except the muzzle-loading muskets with which the Founding Fathers were familiar. Our defense of the right to bear muzzle-loading muskets and bowie knives should please the slave-owning founding fathers.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 6:16 am For 200-years, everyone in The United States understood completely, what The Founders intended by The Second Amendment - there was no distinction whatsoever as to who could own firearms or what firearms they could own. Only recently do we have a new group of experts endeavoring to reinvent what The Founders clearly intended.

Furthermore, the argument that The Founders were evil in their intentions is totally annihilated by The Founder's inclusion in The Constitution of a rational logical means for amending The Constitution, just the same as the inclusion of "all men are created equal" in The Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual end of slavery (enabled by England many years before America declared Independence) to the bane of the southern Democrats that went to war to perpetuate their right to own black humans like they were livestock.

Moral people do the right thing by choice - immoral people chose to do the wrong thing by choice. The argument that moral people should pay the price for what immoral people do, is irrational on a level that is incomprehensible to rational people. But then again, the America people of today are not the America people of yesteryear...

I offer one simple observation: "The Founders" were not wise men sent from God, or from some equally magical thing/place; they were politicians. They were not infallible, like the Christian Pope (). They did what they did, and wrote what they wrote, way back then. None of this makes your Founders wrong, but none of it makes them right either. They were people, like you and me, nothing more. And, like us, they are quite capable of getting things wrong. In this case, I don't know if they got it wrong or not. I'm not American, and have little detailed knowledge of American history.

Ecurb wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 10:18 am "All men are created equal" is not included in the Constiution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, written by slave-owner Thomas Jefferson.

By the way, although England did abolish slaver before we did, they also supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, mainly because their thriving textile industry depended on Confederate cotton.

The development of new technologies has clearly affected the Second Amendment. Does anyone think that the "arms" citizens have a "right to bear" should include nuclear bombs? If not, then we can work backwards and ban poison gas, tanks, machine guns, and (eventually) any firearms except the muzzle-loading muskets with which the Founding Fathers were familiar. Our defense of the right to bear muzzle-loading muskets and bowie knives should please the slave-owning founding fathers.

You skipped over the part about getting Congress and two thirds of State Legislatures to agree with your Second Amendment opinion.

Question: Why did it take until the 1960's for all the wise people in America to suddenly decide that The Founders really only meant muzzle loading firearms? What happened between 1788 and 1968?

Question: An evil white slave owner included the phrase "All men are created equal" in the Declaration - because he was stupid the day he wrote it and really didn't mean it? Was he emotional and incapable of foreseeing the ramifications of the phrase and just went with it without really thinking it through, because it sounded good, or was it just a silly mistake?

England, the Dutch and the Portuguese enriched themselves off of the slave trade - Genuine Americans went to war and died in the mud to end it - other Americans went to war and died in the mud to defend it - you can choose whom you believe were the more virtuous. Nevertheless, the people that supported slavery still exist in America and they still insist on oppressing the Rights of people they hate and have themselves convinced that they are superior to - The Second Amendment being the perfect example of.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 10:32 am I offer one simple observation: "The Founders" were not wise men sent from God, or from some equally magical thing/place; they were politicians. They were not infallible, like the Christian Pope (). They did what they did, and wrote what they wrote, way back then. None of this makes your Founders wrong, but none of it makes them right either. They were people, like you and me, nothing more. And, like us, they are quite capable of getting things wrong. In this case, I don't know if they got it wrong or not. I'm not American, and have little detailed knowledge of American history.

I never mentioned anything about God. Are you suggesting that only people that believed in God are responsible for the idea of morality and immorality?

Most of the human race is immoral, and God or Not God has nothing to do with it. It is a choice, and the choice of immorality is what gives rise to dictators and tyrants.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 10:32 am I offer one simple observation: "The Founders" were not wise men sent from God, or from some equally magical thing/place; they were politicians. They were not infallible, like the Christian Pope (). They did what they did, and wrote what they wrote, way back then. None of this makes your Founders wrong, but none of it makes them right either. They were people, like you and me, nothing more. And, like us, they are quite capable of getting things wrong. In this case, I don't know if they got it wrong or not. I'm not American, and have little detailed knowledge of American history.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 11:22 am I never mentioned anything about God. Are you suggesting that only people that believed in God are responsible for the idea of morality and immorality?

Certainly not! I sought only to suggest that "The Founders" were not infallibly correct in all they did, which is the impression I gained from your post.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 11:31 am Certainly not! I sought only to suggest that "The Founders" were not infallibly correct in all they did, which is the impression I gained from your post.

If The Founders were incorrect in their interpretation of The Second Amendment, there is a rational legal process for repealing it. That process has been available to Americans since 1788. It is the same legal process one would have to navigate if say someone was intent on revoking the Right to free speech, or the Right to select the religion of your choice (if you were an America Citizen), etc., etc., etc.

It is simple a fact that no one has been able to formulate a sound rational argument against The Second Amendment, that will convince two thirds of State Legislatures (and more importantly, State Legislator's voters) to approve it.

-TheLastAmerican wrote: ↑August 19th, 2021, 10:41 am

You skipped over the part about getting Congress and two thirds of State Legislatures to agree with your Second Amendment opinion.

Question: Why did it take until the 1960's for all the wise people in America to suddenly decide that The Founders really only meant muzzle loading firearms? What happened between 1788 and 1968?

Question: An evil white slave owner included the phrase "All men are created equal" in the Declaration - because he was stupid the day he wrote it and really didn't mean it? Was he emotional and incapable of foreseeing the ramifications of the phrase and just went with it without really thinking it through, because it sounded good, or was it just a silly mistake?

England, the Dutch and the Portuguese enriched themselves off of the slave trade - Genuine Americans went to war and died in the mud to end it - other Americans went to war and died in the mud to defend it - you can choose whom you believe were the more virtuous. Nevertheless, the people that supported slavery still exist in America and they still insist on oppressing the Rights of people they hate and have themselves convinced that they are superior to - The Second Amendment being the perfect example of.

I don't know how Thomas Jefferson excused his hypocrisy. He was clearly intelligent, articulate, and (often) well-intentioned. Nonetheless, he owned slaves and maintained a slave mistress with whom he had many children (Sally Hemmings was actually the half-sister of Jefferson's dead wife -- his father-in-law had also fathered children with HIS slave mistress. Their affair began in Paris, when Jefferson was 40(ish) and Hemmings was 14 or 15. Hemmings and her brother almost decided to remain in Paris, where slavery was illegal, and Jefferson persuaded them to return to America by promising Hemmings' brother his freedom -- a promise which he honored. His promises to Sally remain unrecorded. For anyone interested, read "The Hemmings of Monticello" by Annette Gordon-Reed.)

My scholarship on the history of the Second Amendment is sketchy, but I have read that one key reason it was added to the Constitution was that armed militias were deemed necessary to keep potential slave rebellions in check. In states like South Carolina, there were as many slaves as free whites, and the fear of rebellion was reasonable. However, I doubt the "right to bear arms" was extended to slaves. NOr do I know whether automatic firearms were widely available before the 1960s.

Personally, if I want arms to bear, I'm gonna get me a flame thrower, like in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

By the way, we don't need to get 2/3 of the states to ratify a new amendment -- we just need to change local laws and have a Supreme Court that finds them Constiutionally sound.