4 ms·

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have a

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have about the second. The second may seem like the odd man out to you, but that's to you, not to everyone. Others may well (and in fact do) believe that others are the odd man out.

mikeash 14y ago
I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Well, no, actually, I don't. Since it's part of the Bill Of Rights, it's not on its supporters to show why it's a fundamental right, it's on its opponents to show why it isn't. The whole point of those rights being in the Constitution is so that you don't have to endlessly justify those rights later. And, again, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same to you. That really is an important part to grasp. There are people who can make quite a strong case for restricting the First Amendment for reasons that have nothing to do with oppressing the people, but for reasons of protecting the fabric of society. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean their points are of lesser quality. It means that the damage to society is a price I'm willing to pay to enjoy the freedom that comes with it.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I think I've sufficiently argued for why I think the second amendment doesn't belong with the rest. I've also repeatedly stated that I realize this is not a universal view. I don't know what more you want me to do, here, since I seem to already be doing everything you're criticizing me for failing to do.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      I'm sorry, but I really don't see that you have. All you've done is say it's the odd man out and then ask what it protects. I just can't see that as anywhere near a sufficient argument. Or even an argument at all. It's more of a statement of your thesis without support.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        It's a rhetorical question. I don't see that there is anything which makes gun ownership important, I don't see that it protects against anything significant, and I don't see it as being better than not having that right. It's kind of hard to support a negative claim like that. It would be nice if you could kick in a bit of your side instead of just complaining about how I say things. And no, "it's in the Constitution so it's automatically true until disproven" does not work.
        pessimizer 14y ago
        You're the one who is making the case that the second amendment is distinct from the others. Give him something to respond to.
        mikeash 14y ago
        I'm not sure what else I can give. The second amendment doesn't work against government abuses of power, nor does it provide for anything that humans need to live a fulfilling life. That's about it. What else are you looking for?
        pessimizer 14y ago
        Maybe respond to the obvious objections to those two assertions? For starters, what would be your response to: "Yes, it does."
        mikeash 14y ago
- bbxiao1 14y ago
  As a aside, I think the American founding fathers' views of human rights was more that anything and everything is a fundamental right whether it is free speech or, on the other extreme, murder. However, since people have banded to form "society", to join society, a person would have to give up certain rights, e.g. the right to murder. So, depending on where you stand with respect to human rights, who should defend the right to bear arms, a person or a government?
  - eurleif 14y ago
    What's a right? Isn't it something that no one can murder you from doing (or in general, use force to stop you from doing)? If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything?
    - bbxiao1 14y ago
      If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything? That's kind of the idea. What actions are you physically capable of? Once again, in the context of absolute freedom, what are you allowed to do (i.e. a right)? The thing is absolute freedom is a bit complicated especially given individual differences. Order/laws develop to facilitate interactions with other people. I'm not sure how well I can explain this, so here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract You have the right to find it interesting, a right to find it horribly stupid, or a right to find it _________________.

mikeash 14y ago

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Well, no, actually, I don't. Since it's part of the Bill Of Rights, it's not on its supporters to show why it's a fundamental right, it's on its opponents to show why it isn't. The whole point of those rights being in the Constitution is so that you don't have to endlessly justify those rights later. And, again, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same to you. That really is an important part to grasp. There are people who can make quite a strong case for restricting the First Amendment for reasons that have nothing to do with oppressing the people, but for reasons of protecting the fabric of society. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean their points are of lesser quality. It means that the damage to society is a price I'm willing to pay to enjoy the freedom that comes with it.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I think I've sufficiently argued for why I think the second amendment doesn't belong with the rest. I've also repeatedly stated that I realize this is not a universal view. I don't know what more you want me to do, here, since I seem to already be doing everything you're criticizing me for failing to do.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but I really don't see that you have. All you've done is say it's the odd man out and then ask what it protects. I just can't see that as anywhere near a sufficient argument. Or even an argument at all. It's more of a statement of your thesis without support.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      It's a rhetorical question. I don't see that there is anything which makes gun ownership important, I don't see that it protects against anything significant, and I don't see it as being better than not having that right. It's kind of hard to support a negative claim like that. It would be nice if you could kick in a bit of your side instead of just complaining about how I say things. And no, "it's in the Constitution so it's automatically true until disproven" does not work.
      - pessimizer 14y ago
        You're the one who is making the case that the second amendment is distinct from the others. Give him something to respond to.
        mikeash 14y ago
        I'm not sure what else I can give. The second amendment doesn't work against government abuses of power, nor does it provide for anything that humans need to live a fulfilling life. That's about it. What else are you looking for?
        pessimizer 14y ago
        Maybe respond to the obvious objections to those two assertions? For starters, what would be your response to: "Yes, it does."
        mikeash 14y ago
bbxiao1 14y ago
As a aside, I think the American founding fathers' views of human rights was more that anything and everything is a fundamental right whether it is free speech or, on the other extreme, murder. However, since people have banded to form "society", to join society, a person would have to give up certain rights, e.g. the right to murder. So, depending on where you stand with respect to human rights, who should defend the right to bear arms, a person or a government?
- eurleif 14y ago
  What's a right? Isn't it something that no one can murder you from doing (or in general, use force to stop you from doing)? If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything?
  - bbxiao1 14y ago
    If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything? That's kind of the idea. What actions are you physically capable of? Once again, in the context of absolute freedom, what are you allowed to do (i.e. a right)? The thing is absolute freedom is a bit complicated especially given individual differences. Order/laws develop to facilitate interactions with other people. I'm not sure how well I can explain this, so here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract You have the right to find it interesting, a right to find it horribly stupid, or a right to find it _________________.