2ndRateMind

Well that is exactly my point. They are inseparably linked. By that chain of justification. Unless you have a different linkage in mind you have not specified. As for a free people needing some right to keep and bear military grade automatic assault weaponry, irrespective of their criminal past or mental health status, (which are not checked on purchases at arms fairs, for example) I hope to pick up on that, later. Now, I really must go. Meanwhile best wishes, 2RM.

OK, since this thread seems a little more relaxed than the last, I propose to answer it here, rather than there. But, as I just said, I first have an appointment to keep. So, I shall respond on my return. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks for all that Carborendum. A useful contribution to the discussion all round. Unfortunately, I have to go out shortly, so can't do more than ask this brief question: If the security of the state, and the well regulated militia, were meant to be separated from the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then why elide them all into the same sentence? Why not have two clauses as follows? clause 1) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. clause 2) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by each State. Such a wording of the Second Amendment would resolve our differing interpretations decisively, but this is not the wording present. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Somehow, I think I will be able to manage being universally ignored by you guys. I'd prefer to talk, but if it can't be, it can't be. It's a bit like what the Jehovah's Witnesses do when they get a problem person who wants a temperate, rational discussion about ideas. They shun them. Is that what Mormons do, given the same problem? Just asking, not accusing. Best wishes, 2RM.

Except, I'm not an anti-Mormon troll. I'm just sussing out Mormon social attitudes, thus far, to see how compatible they are with my own. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ha Ha! I promise not to put on ignore any of you who pose me any civil question I have no answer to. I don't see that as conducive to learning anything from the forum. Best wishes, 2RM.

Add it to the list of things you are wrong about. And your reasoning to arrive at this conclusion might be....? Let me try to help. Take the UN Declaration of Human Rights, a document that seems to me to be totally reasonable, optimistic and advantageous if universally implemented. But, though it was published in 1948, there still seem to be plenty of people in the world thoroughly alienated from the rights it proposes. So what good is it, to them? Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, of course not, if those rights are enshrined in law, and enforced by the nation state. But if they aren't, I submit rights are no more than a wistful pipe-dream. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ummm, where exactly? Are they written on our hearts? Are they stamped on our intellects? Or, are they some social contrivance, that springs into existence the same moment a community is formed? Or maybe, they are woven into the very fabric of the universe in some way, such that they are indisputably real? As for being inalienable, then I think that if you examine history, you would find your average Saxon peasant, or Russian serf, or Caribbean slave, or Arab hareem concubine, might have good reason to doubt you. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, some might even think that a constitution exists to protect a democracy. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed not. I have attacked ideas, not people. To attack a person is an ad hominem logical fallacy, since a person can be objectionable in every way, and still be perfectly correct in what he or she says. Ideas, on the other hand, are legitimate fair game for debate. And if everyone abides by this basic academic convention, the result is more light shed and less heat generated. I have now said all I intend to say in my defense on this matter. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you, Carborendum, for a well thought out, quite logically connected discourse. Here's my response: On 2) Regardless of the historical development of the Second Amendment, I think we need deal with the wording as it currently stands*, rather than as it once was. Nevertheless, I do not quite see how the quotes you have so helpfully supplied contradict the interpretation I gave. I find them entirely compatible with the notions: On 1) That the security of the free State justifies the well regulated militia, which in turn justifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that if this chain of justification is broken, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary casualty. There is no indication that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is independent of these justifications (or 'parallel', to use your terminology). Otherwise, why bother to mention the security of the state and a well regulated militia, at all? Why not just simply and clearly insist that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? Which is how most Americans understand the amendment, anyway. Perhaps you can indulge me by clarifying why you think differently. Best wishes, 2RM.

There is nothing inconsistent between loving freedom, hating tyranny, and having sensible restrictions on the civilian ownership of firearms. Indeed, it may be argued that they are entirely compatible, since if one is dead by random mass killing, it does not matter that much how much one loves freedom or hates tyranny, as one can't do anything about it. That death is the ultimate loss of freedom and triumph of tyranny. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes. There is some talk of rights as being inalienable and ordained by God. But even a cursory reading of history shows that rights are far from inalienable. And how their divine provenance can be proven, when we cannot even prove God exists anyway, defeats me. So this seems to be just something one either believes or one doesn't. What we can be sure of is that in a democracy, rights are the legal expression of the will of the people to grant each other privileges, and enforce those privileges with the power of the nation state. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, done my chores. Here's a few comments on the Second Amendment, for us all to tussle over. So, it seems to me there are three concepts going on here, arranged in a hierarchy of goodness. The highest good is the security of the free State. The next highest good is a well regulated militia, which is justified by its necessity to the security of a free State. The final (or lowest) good is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so far as that contributes to a well regulated militia, and so far as that militia contributes to the security of a free state. To construe the Second Amendment in this way has consequences: 1) If a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, that militia can be dispensed with. And so far as internal threats go, I cannot see the invasion of Kentucky by New Hampshire in the US any more than I can see the invasion of Kent by Hampshire in the UK. And external threats are far more effectively dealt with at the national level. 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If you don't or can't or won't serve in the militia, the wording of the Second Amendment is such that one can derive the conclusion that you don't get the right to keep and bear arms. 3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, or if that militia is no longer relevant the security of a free state, then that right evaporates. So, this is a philosophical analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, not a legal one. Doubtless lawyers could wrangle over this for ever, and earn themselves fat fees for doing so. The issue is, so far as this thread goes, what do you make of it? Best wishes, 2RM.

It does strike me that the discrepancy in estimates of DGU is so wide (55,000 to 4,700,000) that really they are saying 'ummm, actually, we don't really know!' But it was an interesting article, nonetheless. Best wishes, 2RM.

Do you have evidence for this, or is it an unsupported assertion? Best wishes, 2RM

I have already been warned. And I am trying to be even more civil than I have been so far. So, will you encourage your people likewise? As I said elsewhere, if you all play nicely, I will play nicely. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's really quite an interesting observation, which might account in some considerable manner for the difference in attitudes to guns in the US and the UK. I live in social housing, in inner city Bristol, in quite as rough an area as the city offers. But I feel perfectly safe without a firearm. (I have a crossbow, for prepping purposes, but it's still in it's box two years after I bought it). To be sure, I tend not to go to bad places, or mix with bad people, or do bad things, but really, it has never crossed my mind that I might need a gun to defend myself. Maybe you all need guns, because you all have guns, because you all need guns, because you all have guns, etc, etc. Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually, I defy you to quote me over my last three threads where I have been personally abusive to or bullied any individual contributor. On the other hand, I have personally been accused of being a hateful bigot, being staggeringly ignorant, being a troll, being racist, sexist and ageist, and too many more other insults than I can be bothered to bring to mind. I may tend to express myself in a somewhat trenchant manner, but I have never insulted any individual, and if you all take offense at my style a) you all have very thin skins, and/or b) you all don't really want to discuss the matters I raise at all. Either way, this level personal abuse is unjustified, unjustifiable and does not reflect well on the perpetrators concerned. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, actually, that is exactly what we are trying to do. I am not at all sure the commercial interests and the NRA allow the same political agenda in the US. Best wishes, 2RM.

You are quite right. I must have misread the table. Well, that's the advantage of citing sources: the truth will out! Best wishes, 2RM.

Your point would be more valid if the overall murder rates were comparable. But they are an order of magnitude apart. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes. I have a few points to make in respect of the 2nd Amendment, but will defer them until tomorrow, as I have chores to do tonight. Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't think that is exactly right. The last school shooting we had in the UK was Dunblane, 1996. The US has had 22 such school shootings this year so far, alone. Best wishes, 2RM.