VA Tech Shootings

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

We are talking about different issues - it may turn out, as the result of the appropriate analysis, that the gun is indeed a reasonable means for self-defence. But the use of a gun is not a right. Of course, you have the right to some means, but if it turns out that the gun is one of the "acceptable" means, it will be as the result of some determination - not because a gun is a right.

In America a gun is a right. I do not have any idea what it is up north of us. And we have a right of self defense given our own lives are at risk. It doesnt get much plainer than that.

 

[corndogggy]

We are talking about different issues - it may turn out, as the result of the appropriate analysis, that the gun is indeed a reasonable means for self-defence. But the use of a gun is not a right. Of course, you have the right to some means, but if it turns out that the gun is one of the "acceptable" means, it will be as the result of some determination - not because a gun is a right.

The idea portrayed by our forefathers that we should have the right to bear arms is based not only on self defense, but the idea that private citizens should have a means of revolting against our own government if they became incredibly abusive. The fact of the manner is that guns exist, and if our government and the bad guys are going to have them, which they will, then there is no reason whatsoever to ban private citizens from owning them.

 

[Andre]

The reasons why our forefathers fled England are so easily forgotten nowadays. And, since then, that very nation has cracked down on guns and restricted them pretty heavily. Guess what? They have more crime than we do. Yeah that makes alot of sense.

It is simply invalid reasoning to conclude that gun control does not work because England (with gun control) has more crime than the US (with less gun control). Note: I assume that your facts are indeed correct. This is because factors other than gun laws may have a stronger determining effect on the rate of crime.

 

[corndogggy]

It is simply invalid reasoning to conclude that gun control does not work because England (with gun control) has more crime than the US (with less gun control).

It's not the fact that they simply have more crime... it's the fact that it has sharply INCREASED since introducing gun control measures, even though it was 10 years ago, while ours goes down with the more citizens who carries. It's a stark contrast.

 

[Eric B]

You might want to check your laws again.

There is a check box on the form asking if he had mental problems. (Guess which one he checked?)

That's as far as they're permitted because of "privacy" issues with doctors.

Talk to the ACLU, not the gun dealers.

Legally, according to the criminal background check, he was squeaky clean.

Blame ACLU, as always, but aren't even those modest measures opposed by gun advocates in the name of "freedom"? After all, that is apart of "gun control", and it often sounds like people are against ANY type of "control" at all.

OK, guys, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I have encountered people before who are emotional instead of logical, and they will often swing from one extreme to the other.

It comes from perception.

Guns are perceived as dangerous because the crimes committed with them are spectacular and are played out on the front of every newspaper and on all the news stations. Knives and blunt objects, which are orders of magnitude more dangerous aren't as spectacular and aren't the targets of the liberals. (Besides, it's hard to protect yourself from tyranny with a Louisville Slugger.)

Airplanes and nuclear power are also unjust victims of the emotional perception syndrome. They're perceived to be dangerous by those who feel instead of think because when there's an accident, it's spectacular! Never mind that flying in an airplane is statistically safer than walking, and all the nuclear accidents in the world have resulted in a tiny handful of deaths, while emphysema from coal fired plants claim many lives annually.

My cousin is that way. When the WTC came down, she refused to do anything for days and days, and blamed the US for it for being so prosperous and not sharing it all. (She's also a socialist, but that's beside the point.)

So, do you watch a lot of movies?

Have you ever been attacked by a knife-wielding psycho?

Have you ever had self-defense training?

Have you ever tried to shoot a moving target with a handgun?

Still, the person has to be a few feet from you to be able to harm you. A gun he can get you from yards away. Some may not have good aims, but most people using guns for crime do have some skill with them; and can hit you from a distance much better than anyone can by throwing a knife; else there would hardly be anyone ever getting shot.
I don't believe people wil actually try to argue that a gun is less dangerous that a knife or bat. But again, it's movie fantasyland. Why then, is it the weapon of choice of criminals (the more powerful, the better, as the gangsta rap community constantly brags about), and they don't go back to knives, clubs or swords? It's all about the range of the weapon.

I myself do not believe it is wrong to have a gun, and would never deny anyone the right to protect themselves with it. What I am getting at here is the ATTITUDE I am seeing on the issue. People are BRAGGING about the idea of killing some criminal! On another Christian board, one person's avatar says "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again". Another person half jokingly expressed disappointment that his military target practice on a particular kind of rifle was with paint instead of real ammo. And I have seen similar statements and signatures here. And then all the puns everywhere about "gun control" or "changing my position" meaning "positioning" onesself to shoot (controlling) a gun. Is this funny, or is it a serious matter?

All of this is ALARMING coming from Christians! Not even the discussion I am having on a secular railfan board is this charged. A generation ago, we were criticized by the world for abusing "turn the other cheek" (or at least teaching certain groups of people to, as any Nation of Islam convert would frequently complain!) Now, it is a total about face! What happened? All our leading books/sermons/teachers on the Christian life STILL cite verses about "being anxious for nothing", "this world is passing away; Heaven is more important, etc" "take no thought for your life", "jus trust God for everything", "put Him first, and He shall protect you like He protected Daniel's friends" etc. at those suffering any "trial" (including poverty, mistreatment, etc). A conservative leader like LaHaye and some fundies right here have even gone as far as to say all fear and anger are sin! (as I have argued with a couple here a while back). And what is this glee at the idea of killing criminals, but fear and anger! (And all of this; after the debate I left this board with two months ago, where a person killing himself out of pain or despair is automatically Hellbound for "not trusting God with his life" and "murderers shall not inherit eternal life", and while some of you did not take that position, still the more conservative generally did, including 1 or 2 people with "1611" in their name, and others who would generally be pro-gun! And the attitude I am seeing would cross the line, spiritually, into "murder" in the heart!)

It seems to be plain bloodthirstiness!
It doesn't seem to be just a matter of "self-defense", where the purpose
of a counterattack is defensive (to stop the criminal from harming us or our family; where him dying is an unfortunate risk) but instead, we seem to want to be the executioners, on the offensive, and kill regardless, apparently, even if he does not happen to be armed. Some homeless person breaks into your house, and is unarmed, and you shoot him first (from the way people are talking), you might still be in trouble, or at least have a hard time proving getting out of it. Then what next? Someone approaches you on the street looking threatening, and you just start shooting, and he turns out to be unarmed. (Or maybe not even really threatening in the first place).

We are completely OBSESSED. That's what my concern is, and also a point amity is trying to make. And people just brag about how they scared away a criminal just by having a gun or shooting it without hitting anyone; ignoring others whose experiences with guns were not so furtunate. Again; John Wayne in the movies, riding off into the sunset!

Then, we continue to keep playing this "thinking vs. Feeling/logic vs. Emotion" card against the other side, totally blinded by our own emotions as to how equally or even more driven by them we really are, when someone points this obsession out. This proven by our knee-jerk reactions to them. Else, people would see the point Michael Moore was making on this point (himself a member of the NRA and therefore not against guns), instead of just dismissing him as baseless. He also used Canada crime statistics despite guns, but showed the OTHER factors involved in this, rather than proving gun laws CAUSE our crimes, as amity points out. Also, a big point is being made of England's crime rate going up as gun control goes up. But are you sure of which is causing which. In statistics, anytime youi see a positive correlation, you can't just assume one factor is causing the other. Perhaps the rise in crime already began occurring, (for other reasons), and THIS is what alarmed officials into controlling guns.

All things are lawful, but we should not be brought under power of anything (obsessed with it) (1 Cor.6:12)
People really need to be listening to themselves. Again, just because a person may have the right to defend themselves, including with a gun, that does not mean it should be something we (especially as Christians) obsess over, and are happy to do! If pre-tribulationism turns out to be not true (As I believe it isn't, but that's another story) and we are not raptured out when everything starts unraveling, we are RIPE for Armageddon, where we will be mobilized against anything we preceive as a threat to our way of life, even if it is by the Antichrist and don't know it!

 

[Hope of Glory]

Blame ACLU, as always, but aren't even those modest measures opposed by gun advocates in the name of "freedom"? After all, that is apart of "gun control", and it often sounds like people are against ANY type of "control" at all.

Quite the opposite. Most pro-Second Amendment groups think we should be able to list psychos on the criminal database.

Still, the person has to be a few feet from you to be able to harm you. A gun he can get you from yards away. Some may not have good aims, but most people using guns for crime do have some skill with them; and can hit you from a distance much better than anyone can by throwing a knife; else there would hardly be anyone ever getting shot.

Most people who break into your home will be within a few feet of you at some point. If you are unarmed, they will intentionally approach.

They are, after all, criminals intent on robbing you, and that's the way you do it. Mugging isn't done from across the street.

I don't believe people wil actually try to argue that a gun is less dangerous that a knife or bat. But again, it's movie fantasyland. Why then, is it the weapon of choice of criminals (the more powerful, the better, as the gangsta rap community constantly brags about), and they don't go back to knives, clubs or swords? It's all about the range of the weapon.

They are all equally dangerous in the wrong hands. Some just have the potential for being much more spectacular in their ability to create destruction.

Part of my training includs improvised weapons, and I can tell you that the only way to ban all weapons is to force everyone to go naked.

Oops! Then we still have rocks and sticks.

There's a reason that the number of murder committed with knives and blunt objects is several times higher than that of guns. Many things are potentially deadly.

"jus trust God for everything", "put Him first, and He shall protect you like He protected Daniel's friends" etc. at those suffering any "trial" (including poverty, mistreatment, etc).

I trust God to keep my aim true if/when I find the need to shoot someone or something. Whether to defend myself or feed my family, it's only that God has given me the ability to perform well that permits either.

And what is this glee at the idea of killing criminals, but fear and anger!

Glee? From whom? I don't relish the thought of being put in the position of having to kill someone for any reason, but I do relish the thought of being able to protect my family from a criminal.

Fear and anger? No fear. But, it does anger me that someone wants to harm my family! It angers me that this psycho murdered 32 innocent people, then took his own life, and it could have been prevented by permitting the fact that he was a mental case be reported, or barring that, if that first professor had been armed.

And all of this; after the debate I left this board with two months ago, where a person killing himself out of pain or despair is automatically Hellbound for "not trusting God with his life" and "murderers shall not inherit eternal life", and while some of you did not take that position, still the more conservative generally did, including 1 or 2 people with "1611" in their name, and others who would generally be pro-gun! And the attitude I am seeing would cross the line, spiritually, into "murder" in the heart!)

So, pointing out that murder is self-suicide and very egocentric and does have far-reaching consequences, is somehow wrong?

Somehow, in your mind, self defense is murder?

Thankfully, the Bible doesn't agree with you. Neither accidental manslaughter nor self-defense nor capital punishment are considered murder.

It doesn't seem to be just a matter of "self-defense", where the purpose
of a counterattack is defensive (to stop the criminal from harming us or our family; where him dying is an unfortunate risk) but instead, we seem to want to be the executioners, on the offensive, and kill regardless, apparently, even if he does not happen to be armed.

So, you think we need to "play fair" and wait until they shoot first?

Perhaps we should give them two or three warnings first in addition to a stern lecture before defending our families?

Self-defense, contrary to your misguided notions, is not always a counterattack.

Him dying is unfortunate, but self-defense is stopping the threat. If you had ever had any training in self-defense, you would know that "playing nice" is not part of stopping the threat. Center mass is stopping the threat in most cases; in some, even that is not enough.

Some homeless person breaks into your house, and is unarmed, and you shoot him first (from the way people are talking), you might still be in trouble, or at least have a hard time proving getting out of it.

First of all, why is he in my home, a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for my family?

Second of all, you need to read the law. There's no "getting out of it". The law specifically permits you to shoot first, ask questions later, if someone is illegally in your home. No trouble to need to get out of.

Then what next? Someone approaches you on the street looking threatening, and you just start shooting, and he turns out to be unarmed. (Or maybe not even really threatening in the first place).

Why this non sequiter?

I will modifiy it a bit, though, and state that if you had gone through the training, you would know that the law permits you (without fear of legal fallout) to defend yourself or others from the threat of death or severe bodily harm. So, if an unarmed person is twice as big as your wife and is beating her, and he's big enough to beat you as well, guess what? You may defend yourself and your wife, even if he's unarmed.

We are completely OBSESSED. That's what my concern is, and also a point amity is trying to make. And people just brag about how they scared away a criminal just by having a gun or shooting it without hitting anyone; ignoring others whose experiences with guns were not so furtunate.

Just like you ignore all those people who were killed by cars and excusing it because cars are A-OK in your book.

Actually, no one ignores those who are injured in firearm related incidents, whether accidental or intentional. There are many safety training programs that are available, and your pro-second amendment groups want the justice system to do their job and get the criminals off the street.

Thankfully, most people realize that the problem is not the tool, it's how it's misused. Self-defense is not misusing it.

 

[annsni]

A few statistics on women and guns:

A 1997 study found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 3.4 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide. Additionally, when looking at whether a woman would be killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide. (James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. )

The risks of handgun ownership far outweigh the benefits. In 2000, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 222 women were murdered in handgun homicides. (Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, et al., "Hospitalization Charges, Costs, and Income for Firearm-Related Injuries at a University Trauma Center," Journal of the American Medical Association 273, no. 22, (1995): 1768-1773.)

 

[Andre]

The fact of the manner is that guns exist, and if our government and the bad guys are going to have them, which they will, then there is no reason whatsoever to ban private citizens from owning them.

This is misleading since it paints a "thing cannot be any other way" type of picture. I submit that it is rather obvious that appropriate controls can indeed limit availability of guns to military and police (and certain other specialized groups). Clearly it is possible to create a society where it is much much much harder for the "bad guys" to get guns than it is in the US. Such societies exist right now (e.g. South Korea, I am pretty sure). So it is simply incorrect to assert that bad guy getting guns in basically inevitable.

The "deterrence of tyranny" is a legitimate question. I don't think that an armed citizenry will deter tyranny in 21st century industrialized nations. I have explained why I believe this in post 58.

 

[Ed Edwards]

see item #9 here:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/womenfs.htm

 

[Andre]

In America a gun is a right. I do not have any idea what it is up north of us. And we have a right of self defense given our own lives are at risk. It doesnt get much plainer than that.

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people legal access to guns. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have guns.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that gun ownership by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant. Note that I still think that self-defence is a right, no matter what the societal conditions.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Most people who break into your home will be within a few feet of you at some point. If you are unarmed, they will intentionally approach.

True. In the Philippines, we call them "desidido". Decided. Minds made up. Desperate. Anyone who enters someone's house while the homeowner is present is set on hurting the homeowner if they ever confront each other. In most cases, these home invaders are armed. And more often than not, in an unarmed population, the decent, law-abiding, breadwinning citizen loses in that confrontation.

And what is this glee at the idea of killing criminals

Anyone who gleefully kills another person is just as sick in the head as the guy who massacred 32 people at VA Tech.

 

[Andre]

It's not the fact that they simply have more crime... it's the fact that it has sharply INCREASED since introducing gun control measures, even though it was 10 years ago, while ours goes down with the more citizens who carries. It's a stark contrast.

This would really only support your position if it was fairly evident that other variables were not responsible for the increase in crime.

Everyone needs to realize that correlation does not imply causality. It is obviously true that entering a hospital is correlated with death. For example, in a given week let's say that 1 % of people of who enter the hospital die in the next 30 days. Obviously far less than 1 % of the general population will die in the next 30 days.

This, of course, does not mean that entering a hospital is the cause of increased rate of death - it is the physical illnesses and injuries that are responsbile. I hope I do not appear condescending, but this issue needs to be raised, I think.

 

[rbell]

This would really only support your position if it was fairly evident that other variables were not responsible for the increase in crime.

Everyone needs to realize that correlation does not imply causality. It is obviously true that entering a hospital is correlated with death. For example, in a given week let's say that 1 % of people of who enter the hospital die in the next 30 days. Obviously far less than 1 % of the general population will die in the next 30 days.

This, of course, does not mean that entering a hospital is the cause of increased rate of death - it is the physical illnesses and injuries that are responsbile. I hope I do not appear condescending, but this issue needs to be raised, I think.

Andre,

To every stat/study that you've been shown, your response has been, "But that doesn't account for all the factors."

Since we cannot account for all the factors (it would be impossible to consider every single variable, then we are at an impasse. You leave us no way to prove our point...because, every stat we offer cannot account for every single variable.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

To every stat/study that you've been shown, your response has been, "But that doesn't account for all the factors."

Since we cannot account for all the factors (it would be impossible to consider every single variable, then we are at an impasse. You leave us no way to prove our point...because, every stat we offer cannot account for every single variable.

Circular reasoning.

I am not engaging in circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when, as part of one or more premises, one explicitly or implicity assumes the very thing one is trying to demonstrate.

And the fact is that figuring these things out is difficult. Such is the nature of life. You almost seem to argue as if its "not fair" that you have to control out other variables. Well, the world is what it is. The same challenge faces those of us whose intuition says that gun control is wise. If we were to make statements like: "In South Korea there is gun control and far less violent crime than in the US (both are true, I think) and therefore gun control reduces crime", the gun supporters would have every right to cry "foul" - the fact that crime in South Korea is low may have nothing to do with gun control laws at all.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that gun ownership by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant. Note that I still think that self-defence is a right, no matter what the societal conditions.

That's why the founding fathers included ways to amend the Constitution. If your suppositions are true, then it can be changed.

Of course, it's much easier to simply ignore the law because it "seems" like a good idea.

But, until then, I will still push for banning criminals instead of making law-abiding citizens sitting ducks.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I've modified your statement (modifications are bold, italic, and underlined; the word "possible" is not modified) to see how people feel about it:

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people the right to vote. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, lack of education, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have the right to vote.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that the right to vote by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant.

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people the right to free speech. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, verbal attacks on government, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have the right to free speech.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that the right to free speech by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant.

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people the right to worship freely. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, intolerance of sin, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have the right to worship freely.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that the right to worship freely by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant.

BTW, who decides, "if conditions warrant"?

 

[Andre]

Hello Hope:

I am not suggesting intentionality, but your re-working of my posts is highly misleading. Here is what I actually wrote:

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people legal access to guns. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have guns.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that gun ownership by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant. Note that I still think that self-defence is a right, no matter what the societal conditions.

You then post the following re-working:

Things are not that simple. The following is a possible scenario: When the Constitution was written, it was indeed sensible to give ordinary people the right to vote. The nature of the society was such that this was a good thing to do. It is now 2007, and the nature of society has changed - there is urban crowding, racial tension, more mental illness, lack of education, etc. It is now no longer in society's best interests to let ordinary people have the right to vote.

I am not saying that the above scenario is indeed correct. But the fact that it could be correct demonstrates that the right to vote by regular citizens should not be considered as a right - it should be seen as a privelege that might be revoked (for all citizens) if conditions warrant

I would hope that I need not explain the problem here. I made an argument about the issue of legal access to guns. You then use the general form of my statement, but entirely change the subject, and seem to expect that this re-worked statement, whose content is obviously objectionable, will be seen as logically following from my position in respect to guns. This is very incorrect.

If I had written:

"People should not be allowed to have drive a car if they are drunk"

you cannot utterly change the meaning of the sentence (while retaining its form) and expect that I would agree with the following rework:

"People should not be allowed to get married if they are black"

I entirely disagree with all the reworked versions and hope that readers will know that the content of the rework is only similar to my original in respect to format of delivery.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Hello Hope:

I am not suggesting intentionality, but your re-working of my posts is highly misleading. Here is what I actually wrote:



You then post the following re-working:



I would hope that I need not explain the problem here. I made an argument about the issue of legal access to guns. You then use the general form of my statement, but entirely change the subject, and seem to expect that this re-worked statement, whose content is obviously objectionable, will be seen as logically following from my position in respect to guns. This is very incorrect.

If I had written:

"People should not be allowed to have drive a car if they are drunk"

you cannot utterly change the meaning of the sentence (while retaining its form) and expect that I would agree with the following rework:

"People should not be allowed to get married if they are black"

I entirely disagree with all the reworked versions and hope that readers will know that the content of the rework is only similar to my original in respect to format of delivery.

No, I covered things that are specifically covered as rights in the Constitution, which is the basis for the laws in our land.

No one, drunk or not, has a right to drive a car.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to worship freely. These rights can only be taken away when the individual forfeits these rights (such as losing the right to bear arms by being a convicted felon), and can only be abridged when the actions of the individual harms others. (Such as yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or kidnapping someone to sacrifice them in a religious ceremony.)

Your examples, such as driving a car to work, are not rights.

The ones that I used to reword your statement are specifically spelled out as rights, and as such, are not misleading in the least.

To the contrary, as specific rights, they are the most applicable.

 

[Andre]

No, I covered things that are specifically covered as rights in the Constitution, which is the basis for the laws in our land.

No one, drunk or not, has a right to drive a car.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to worship freely. These rights can only be taken away when the individual forfeits these rights (such as losing the right to bear arms by being a convicted felon), and can only be abridged when the actions of the individual harms others. (Such as yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or kidnapping someone to sacrifice them in a religious ceremony.)

Your examples, such as driving a car to work, are not rights.

The ones that I used to reword your statement are specifically spelled out as rights, and as such, are not misleading in the least.

To the contrary, as specific rights, they are the most applicable.

Your post is indeed misleading.

I have never denied that the Constitution gives the right to bear arms.

I have never denied that the Constitution gives the right to vote, worship, etc.

We all know these are in the Constitution.

When you re-word my statement about access to guns into a series of statements about other rights, you engage in the highly unjustified step of implying that my argument against gun access could equally well be used against voting, free speech etc.

I challenge the wisdom of having a right to bear arms. That is all I am doing. I am not challenging the right to vote. It is you who give readers that impression with your re-work of my statement.

Is it possible that a "right" given in the Constiution should be withdrawn as times change? Of course it is. It is even possible that the framers of the Constitution made unwise choices in respect to enshrining certain things as rights in the first place.

What is misleading about your post is that it implies that if I am arguing against "right" A, I am also arguing against "right" B, "right" C, etc. This is of course simply not true.

"Rights" in the Constitution are not handed to us from the mouth of God - I assume that, like me, you believe only the Scriptures have that status. The fact of a right being in the Constitution in 1776 (or whatever) does not mean that, at some point in the future, that right should be withdrawn. The Constitution does not necessarily contain timeless truths, as much as you may revere it.

Please do not misrepresent my position. The fact that I question the wisdom of one of these rights has no bearing whatsoever on what I think about the others.

 

[carpro]

Just a slight correction to your debate points...

The "right to vote" is not explicitly provided by the Constitution.

Carry on.:thumbs: