#207 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 03:26 AM | Reply | Flag

Your non-retort says all I need to know. I expected more depth.

#204 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 03:03 AM | Reply | Flag

The forced contrivance is yours alone. I said countries use bombs like people use guns. How you got to hunting bambi with bombs is beyond me.

Countries use bombs for defense--as a threat to other countries not to attack.

People use guns for defense--as a threat to other people not to attack.

Where is the difference? Try not to stray into another contrived scenario and leave bambi out of it. Your choice of a gun you can't get to over a car antenna shows your logic skills. They need work.

That's a false dichotomy. Sorry.

#199 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 02:33 AM | Reply | Flag

It seems an excellent point and can be extended to all who have been killed by guns. But take this woman alone and answer the question. Would you rather she be alive or have the right to bear arms.

It is a hypothetical question.

OK so you acknowledge the academic nature of your "contributions".

I acknowledge the existence of a moral responsiblity which you denied existed,

The user never accepts ALL responsibility---there are factory mistakes that get companies sued.

In which case it's not the user's responsibility.

Then you shouldn't say that they do. Remeber?

If the consumer knew the risk but bought and used the product anyway, bearing all responsibility for their injuries in the process,
#191 | Posted by jpw

There is a moral responsibility. Not everyone would make guns and get rich if given the opportunity.

So some would make guns and give them away to remain poor?

No, they would do something else with their money and let others take the moral responsibility of which you think so little.

If you make bombs, you bear some responsibility as to how they are used. Same with guns--or anything else.

False equivalence.

Firearms have legitimate purposes.

Bombs? Not so much.

They are exactly the same except on a different scale. Countries use bombs like people use guns. They have the same concepts of legitimacy in defense and offense.

#197 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag

Well, so much for thinking we found common ground. The right has not changed. That a person dies is tragic, not constitutional. Basic gun safety goes a long way.

#193 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 01:51 AM | Reply | Flag

The right has been infringed. Where does the "well-regulated" part come into the equation?

If the consumer knew the risk but bought and used the product anyway, bearing all responsibility for their injuries in the process, what does an acknowledgement of "moral" responsibility serve?

#191 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag

I didn't say it served any purpose. I said it existed. The user never accepts ALL responsibility---there are factory mistakes that get companies sued. There is a moral responsibility. Not everyone would make guns and get rich if given the opportunity.

If you make bombs, you bear some responsibility as to how they are used. Same with guns--or anything else.

#181 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is generally accepted that the first 10 amendments are individual rights. As has been shown, 20% of them apply to States and not individuals. Just because you eliminate one of those first 10 amendments doesn't alter the facts. That's like saying--eliminating all the strike outs, he had a hell of a year.

So, it is true that the right to bear arms is defined by what pre-existed the BoR?

#186 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 01:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not at all. The laws have changed. But the laws that have changed have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment does not allow for any infringements. Since gun laws would be an infringement if the 2nd amendment were for individual rights, the laws must not have anyting to do with the 2nd amendment.

Looks like Bob's lying again.

#182 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-05-19 01:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

What makes his words any more valid than PeeWee Hermans?

The right to bear arms preceded the constitution. Your imagination to the contrary.

#183 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 01:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeez---read the first part of post # 180 again and you will see that I agree with your point about that right preceeding the Constitution. Then see if you can read the rest correctly.

Tell me, Bob, what do yo propose we do then? Should these companies contribute financially to those hurt by the products they produced? Should they stop producing anything that could cause bodily harm lest they bear responsibility for it?

Not at all. My point is that they bear responsibility. Your best retort to that point is---what? I haven't seen anything yet. Should they have to pay for their responsiblity---no---but they should acknowledge it. Take the circular saw scenario you brought up. They shouldn't have to pay because the buyer knew the possibilities and most likely used it incorrectly. But they bear a responsibility because they knew their product was capable of doing such damage and still decided to manufacture it.

#174 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 12:54 AM | Reply | Flag

The right to bear arms pre-existed the Bill of Rights.

I've said that MANY times. Such a right was a GIVEN. To think otherwise at the time was foolish. That is why such an amendment was never considered. Might as well make an amendment saying people had the right to ride horses in town.

It was codified in the Second Amendment.

Not at all---unless you think the Founders were too stupid to say---Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms---if that is what they meant. No--the second amendment was to protect the States from and evil central government and that amendment gave them the right to train and maintain their own protective well regulated militias. No other government on earth before or since has given such a right to any part of their domain. That's why the 2nd was so important. The States just got out of a war with a tyrannical government and didn't want to chance being under another such government without some protection. There wasn't a line to join the United States. It took years for all the original 13 colonies to sign up, and the 2nd amendment was critical to gain their acceptance.

#176 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 01:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

My reading of the 10th is that it's affirming the Constitutional boundaries placed on the federal government by saying if it isn't specifically stated here, it goes to the states or the people.

If anything, they're excluding the feds when it comes to the enumeration and/or defining of new rights/powers.

#177 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 01:00 AM | Reply | Flag

Yes--the Fed is limiting itself by saying--we'll take what we want and leave the rest to the States---and after the States take what they want, we'll leave the rest to the people.

But it isn't an individual right and neither is the 2nd. Well, the 2nd amendment is an individual right NOW, but it didn't start out that way.

I've heard this before but have yet to find a good explanation for why the second of nine explicit individual rights would not apply to the individual.

#167 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Bill of Rights is not dedicated to individual rights exclusively. The second and tenth amendment do not apply to individual rights.

The second amendment protects the State against an evil central government by forming a well-regulated militia---hardly an individual right.

The tenth gives the States the right to all other laws that the Feds don't take, and leaves whatever is left to an individual. But in the 10th, the Fed takes precedence--then the States---then the individual---hardly an individual right.

But in the 10th amendment is the true right to keep and bear arms since such a right isn't in the Constitution. The closest thing is the 2nd amendment which allows the States to form their own armies for protection from the central government. The States wouldn't ratify the Constitution without the 2nd amendment protecting them from the central government.

Sounds like to me old George was describing what a "well-regulated militia" meant in his day.

As in that's not what it means today? So the SCOTUS didn't get it wrong according to George?

No, that isn't how it is seen today, and yes, the 5 activist judges got it wrong, over the 4 judges who could actually read.

#162 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Does Craftsman bear responsibility for fingers lost to circular saws?

Yes

Does Rawlings bear responsibility for injuries from softballs/baseballs?

Yes.
Doe Oneida bear responsibility for kitchen knife accidents?

If they made the knife--yes

Does Office Max bear responsibility for paper cuts?

Yes.

As for anyone being shown foolish it's all in your head, bob. You could pound your head on your keyboard a couple times and post the results and still think you made someone look like a fool.

If you make something or sell something and it hurts someone else you bear some of the reponsibility. Sorry the concept eludes you, but that isn't my problem.

That isn't to say there are always LEGAL repercussions, but there is a moral responsibility that you seemingly can't comprehend.

#157 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag

Look into liability for third party criminal conduct as a starting point.

#155 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Look into morality.

#146 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-19 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag

Hey, you brought it up. If you can't back your mouth, maybe you shouldn't use it so often.

#145 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-19 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you just don't get it. No gun--no gun deaths. Gun manufacturers are responsible for making the gun available.

No heroin--no heroin deaths. Those who sell heroin bear some responsiblity for heroin deaths. After all, heroin is an inanimate object.

No tobacco--no tobacco deaths. Those who sell tobacco bear some responsiblity for tobacco deaths. After all, tobacco is an inanimate object.

No automobiles--no automobile deaths. Those who sell automobiles bear some responsiblity for automobile deaths. After all, the automobiles is an inanimate object.

Get it yet?

#139 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-18 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Fine, now that you agree that--no guns---no gun deaths is valid, How can you deny that those who manufacture guns do not bear some of the responsibility for gun deaths?

Irrelevant. Context, militia. Second Amendment is individual.

#126 | Posted by et_al at 2013-05-18 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then why is "militia" mentioned and "individual" is not mentioned?

You mean not in the contrived instance you're talking about.

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-18 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

What contrived instance are you talking about. Hard to find much contrivance in the statement----no gun--no gun death. Still eating those funny mushrooms?

#110 | Posted by rcade at 2013-05-18 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you must be mistaken. Super Geniuses on the DR have claimed for years that EVERYONE from infants to little old ladies was considered to be a part of the militia. In fact, back in those days, they edited the DOI to WE THE PEOPLE from the original WE THE MILITIA. Had they left the original word MILITIA in there instead of PEOPLE, things would be much clearer today.

Except no gun is far from reality.

UMMM not in the instance we are talking about on this thread. goatman gets upset if you stray from the subject, so watch your step buster. In this case, if there had been no gun---there would have been no death.

Guns are quite prevalent in our society. What part confuses you?

No part confuses me. I agree. But the point still stands---no gun---no gun deaths. Still waiting for your explanation as to how that is not true.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2013-05-18 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag

goatman thinks he is the thread monitor now---all hail goatman.

Question:

Does rcade pay you or are you self-appointed?