10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

Post Reply New Topic

I still don't get why murders are only bad if they're committed using a gun... since knife homicide goes up as gun ownership goes down, is that an argument for increasing gun ownership?

The italics around "militia" are mine.

This amendment was written back in the days before our country had a standing military, a police force, a national guard. The people of the first thirteen states didn't like armed forces outside of wartime - which was part of the reason the Revolution started in the first place, because the people of the thirteen colonies wanted to get the British troops off of their land. We have the strongest military in the world right now. Is this amendment necessary? No. But the government is smart enough to know that they won't be able to take away people's guns. They aren't trying to take away people's guns. They'll take away all of your privacy rights online, but they won't take away the guns.

True. But someone who killed somebody by hitting them with their car might not have killed the victim if the person who caused the accident in the first place didn't have a car. Similarly, a person who committed a murder with a gun might not have killed the murder victim if they didn't have a gun.

Sigh. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/youtube]

You just made my point for me - it's absurd to take away someone's car because they *might* one day kill someone with it.

Go for it. That'll happen somewhere between pigs flying and hell freezing over.

And what, pray tell, was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and how do you know this? As far as I can see, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clearly stated within the 2nd Amendment itself - guns are needed by the people because the people will use their own guns to equip themselves when called to service in the Militia - at least that's how it was back in the late 18th century. If there was some other purpose, why would the founding fathers include only part of the purpose in the very text of the amendment?

Since I already posted the easy-to-digest video version, here's the legal one:



Full text: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The modern, intellectual bottom line is this:

The second amendment is archaic, obsolete and dangerous. It needs deleting and new laws to be put in place for the benefit and safety of all humanity.

Coming from someone who isn't a citizen of the United States - why should I listen to *anything* you have to say regarding our laws?

Then all of the constitution must be archaic and dangerous.

It's your kind of intellectualism that gives intellect in general a bad name.

Oh now that's funny!

You will never see guns get banned in America not today not tommorrow. It will never happen no matter how many incidents involving a psyco masscring being used as excuses to ban guns because banning guns wont stop psychos obtaining them illegally also leaving civilians more vulnurable to home invasions rapes and murders. Gun laws don't apply to those people.

The Penn & Teller video, which you've posted before, is a bad joke. They parse the text of the amendment in a nonsensical way, and in the most self-serving way possible, ignoring, among other things, the punctuation of the text.

As far as DC vs. Heller, I could not disagree more. The implied assertion in their reasoning is that a prefatory clause, being a tool which can be used to clarify the meaning of an objective clause, must therefore only be used to clarify an objective clause. The is a logical fallacy. They simply chose to ignore and gloss over the fact that the prefatory clause may in fact be used not just to establish a context for determining the meaning of the objective clause, but to actually go further and restrict the meaning of the objective clause. This is especially true when the objective clause could easily stand on its own without any ambiguity, and the prefatory clause does not serve to clarify it any further. This is exactly the case we have with the 2nd Amendment.

Their "church and state" example is invalid because the text of that sentence and the text of the 2nd amendment are not analogous. Why? Because in the case of the church and state example, if the objective clause stood alone as its own sentence, the meaning of the word "canons" would be ambiguous. To remove the ambiguity, the objective clause itself would need to be rewritten (i.e. "The teaching of religious canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.") or some prefatory clause such as the one used must be included in order to clarify the meaning of the word "canons".

On the other hand, consider the text of the 2nd Amendment: "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." (prefatory clause bolded, objective clause italicized)

In the case of the 2nd amendment, the objective clause would be perfectly clear even if the prefatory clause were not there (there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of the word "arms" or the meaning of the word "people", for instance). Therefore, the prefatory clause in this case either represents an unnecessary clarification of the objective clause, and is therefore superfluous, or it is in fact present to establish a framework limiting the purpose of the objective clause. I do not believe that the founding fathers would include language in the Constitution or an Amendment that they meant to be superfluous, and in any case, I believe it would be dangerous and unwise if we were to start to cherry picking the Constitution for words and phrases that actually count, and other words and phrases that can somehow be ignored.

Consider this sentence:

"Chocolate cake, being a favorite of the birthday-boy, dessert should be served at his birthday party."

Does this mean only that some type of dessert should be served at the party, or chocolate cake in particular? I suggest it is the latter. This is a case of the objective clause making perfect sense on its own and not requiring any further clarification (of course dessert should be served at the birthday party!). Clearly the prefatory clause here is not just some idle comment made in passing, but is actually restricting the objective clause - not just any dessert should be served, but chocolate cake in particular.

On the other hand:

"Jack always wanted to run home"
"Being a homebody, Jack always wanted to run home"
"As the fastest man on his baseball team, Jack always wanted to run home"

Here's a case where the meaning of the objective clause is not, on its own, necessarily clear. Here the perfatory clause is actually serving only to clarify the meaning of the objective clause and to remove ambiguity from the objective clause.

The Penn & Teller video, which you've posted before, is a bad joke. They parse the text of the amendment in a nonsensical way, and in the most self-serving way possible, ignoring, among other things, the punctuation of the text.

As far as DC vs. Heller, I could not disagree more. The implied assertion in their reasoning is that a prefatory clause, being a tool which can be used to clarify the meaning of an objective clause, must therefore only be used to clarify an objective clause. That is a logical fallacy. If such learned men as US Supreme Court justices really do not know this, and can not see this, its an absolute outrage. If, as I suspect, these men knew that very well and chose to intentionally ignore it in order to reach their preferred conclusion, along with the outrage they should all be impeached. Ignoring it on purpose, or simply not realizing it, they glossed over the fact that the prefatory clause may in fact be used not just to establish a context for determining the meaning of the objective clause, but to actually go further and restrict the meaning of the objective clause. This is especially true when the objective clause could easily stand on its own without any ambiguity, and the prefatory clause does not serve to clarify it any further. This is exactly the case we have with the 2nd Amendment.

Their "church and state" example is invalid because the text of that sentence and the text of the 2nd amendment are not analogous. Why? Because in the case of the church and state example, if the objective clause stood alone as its own sentence, the meaning of the word "canons" would be ambiguous. To remove the ambiguity, the objective clause itself would need to be rewritten (i.e. "The teaching of religious canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.") or some prefatory clause such as the one used must be included in order to clarify the meaning of the word "canons".

On the other hand, consider the text of the 2nd Amendment: "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." (prefatory clause bolded, objective clause italicized)

In the case of the 2nd amendment, the objective clause would be perfectly clear even if the prefatory clause were not there (there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of the word "arms" or the meaning of the word "people", for instance). Therefore, the prefatory clause in this case either represents an unnecessary clarification of the objective clause, and is therefore superfluous, or it is in fact present to establish a framework limiting the purpose of the objective clause. I do not believe that the founding fathers would include language in the Constitution or an Amendment that they meant to be superfluous, and in any case, I believe it would be dangerous and unwise if we were to start to cherry picking the Constitution for words and phrases that actually count, and other words and phrases that can somehow be ignored.

Consider this sentence:

"Chocolate cake, being a favorite of the birthday-boy, dessert should be served at his birthday party."

Does this mean only that some type of dessert should be served at the party, or chocolate cake in particular? I suggest it is the latter. This is a case of the objective clause making perfect sense on its own and not requiring any further clarification (of course dessert should be served at the birthday party!). Clearly the prefatory clause here is not just some idle comment made in passing, but is actually restricting the objective clause - not just any dessert should be served, but chocolate cake in particular.

On the other hand:

"Jack always wanted to run home"
"Being a homebody, Jack always wanted to run home"
"As the fastest man on his baseball team, Jack always wanted to run home"

Here's a case where the meaning of the objective clause is not, on its own, necessarily clear. Here the perfatory clause is actually serving only to clarify the meaning of the objective clause and to remove ambiguity from the objective clause.[/quote]

Last edited by ScrewyWabbit on 01 Mar 2013, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Excuse me, but there are multiple ways to interpret the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



In addition to the literal - there's also a potential philosophical meaning, that the people have the right to take up arms (fight) against...well, it's not said - so I guess that would mean they would have the right to fight for anything.

The prefatory clause is meant to clarify that we're talking about weapons of the type that would be used by the militia (which is basically how the opinion of US v. Miller reads).