tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4006019677150884975..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Gun ControlAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83946715913567010842010-01-17T20:06:50.276-07:002010-01-17T20:06:50.276-07:00There is a simple, naturalistic 'bright' p...There is a simple, naturalistic 'bright' proof of the right to keep and bear arms. <br />1. We have a right to live (per the Declaration of Independence).<br />2. Living requires self defense (because personal defense is *not* the government's job).<br />3. Therefore we have a right to defend ourselves.<br />4. Guns are the state of the art in self defense (and predators can always get them). <br />The conclusion should be obvious (to those not drunk on the wine of pacifism).<br />John BillingsJohn Billingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07237321615151017368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90375106281411664982007-02-12T16:33:00.000-07:002007-02-12T16:33:00.000-07:00On a related issue, it is relevant to note that ev...<I>On a related issue, it is relevant to note that even the rule to be in by 10:00 has exceptions.</I><BR/><BR/>True, because that rule is given in a context that normally includes the assumption "extreme situations will change things." That's pretty much always the case when two rational people are working together and have verbal, casual agreements. If I promise to get you something, we both know that you won't hold me to it if something awful happens.<BR/><BR/>The Constitution is not such a thing. It's not quite a contract nor quite a law, but it shares qualities of both. If we have a signed contract which obligates me to bring you something, I can't justify being late because my mother is in the hospital unless I've got provisions for that written in somewhere. Ditto if the law is involved. With the Constitution, there's nothing in it that allows for "exceptions in extreme situations." There's nothing in it that tells you how to interpret it, either, so it's up to you to decide if you're going to adopt an absolutist / literalist approach or not.<BR/><BR/>What you choose will have significant consequences - like here, for example. If you adopt an absolutist stance, you have an easy conclusion with "no gun control, period" (it's not completely problem-free, but in most cases your course is pretty clear and simple). If you don't adopt such a stance, you have several hard arguments: justifying that stance, justifying where you draw your lines, and justifying what sorts of "gun control" are compatible with the 2nd amendment.<BR/><BR/>At no point will you be able to say "but the 2nd amendment prohibits eliminating the right to keep and bear arms" as a defense for where you draw your line. Literalists can do that, but not you. You have to use reason, common sense, evidence, statistics, etc. You have to go outside the Constitution to justify a position about what's constitutional and base it on non-constitutional information.<BR/><BR/>It's no coincidence that defenders of a more absolutist stance here also defend a more absolutist, religion-based morality. Such positions seem to make hard questions easier to answer, eliminating grey areas. If you and I agree that some restrictions on "arms" are valid, and that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be read in an absolutist manner, we're basically arguing over a huge grey area where there probably isn't any One Right Answer. That scares some people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39420598024598007822007-02-12T11:51:00.000-07:002007-02-12T11:51:00.000-07:00On a related issue, it is relevant to note that ev...On a related issue, it is relevant to note that even the rule to be in by 10:00 has exceptions.<BR/><BR/>If the child comes it at 1:00 AM saying, "There was an accident. A car went through a red light and hit a motorcyclist, then sped off. I was the only one there. My cell phone doesn't work in that area so I sent another guy to get help and stayed with him until the ambulance arrived."<BR/><BR/>Or, "I was hiding from a would-be murderer."<BR/><BR/>These would be taken as legitimate excuses for breaking the rule to be home by 10:00.<BR/><BR/>However, "I was not doing anything unhealthy or dangerous" is not a legitimate excuse. It is still a fallacy to interpret the rule in a way that allows for this type of exception.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64529970883096891912007-02-12T05:34:00.000-07:002007-02-12T05:34:00.000-07:00"The Bill of Rights states, “the right of the Peop..."The Bill of Rights states, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s the rule."<BR/><BR/>The Bill of Rights also states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Does this make libel, defamation, and incitement laws unconstitutional? Constitutional provisions against "cruel and unusual punishment" are fairly open-ended, allowing for a variety of interpretations. The phrase "no law" is quite absolute.<BR/><BR/>Is there any constitutional provision which is stated unambiguously and for which there are no exceptions made? I don't think so - jurists have found that on the outer edges, some exceptions have to be made in order to keep the peace and prevent harm. Libel causes harm. Incitement causes harm. Human sacrifices cause harm. If a clear link can be made between action X and harm, then it's hard to argue that you have an absolute constitutional right to do X.<BR/><BR/>Thayne's examples about the sorts of "arms" which are banned without argument fit here as well. Some arms are too dangerous to not restrict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81274342088833187102007-02-11T23:18:00.000-07:002007-02-11T23:18:00.000-07:00Alonzo --Two things.First, imagine the parents sai...Alonzo --<BR/><BR/>Two things.<BR/><BR/>First, imagine the parents said "since it's important for grade schoolers to get plenty of rest, curfew will be set at 8:00 P.M."<BR/><BR/>Surely the highschool children would have a case if they said, "clearly, the first clause of this rule implies that the rule it is meant to apply only to the grade schoolers, not to us." <BR/><BR/>Isn't it possible to make that same argument regarding the amendment; that it applies to militias? I haven't looked into this in a long while, but isn't that what the Supreme Court ruled?<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying this argument should carry the day. Afterall, it implies a fair bit of sloppiness on the part of the framers. They could have easily said "...the right of the <I>Militia</I> to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," just as the parents could have said "curfew for those under the age of 13 will be 8:00 P.M."<BR/><BR/>Second, the second amendment doesn't mention guns, it says "arms," which is a lot more broad. Arms infringment already exists. One cannot own nuclear weapons, "dirty" bombs, ICBMs, etc. I don't hear much complaining about that. <BR/><BR/>A law banning hand guns, for examle, would simply be adding one more to the list of controlled arms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com