Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Debate opinion topics of original content.

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:35 pm

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:And you're going to do it again here. "But the US Constitution..." But the US Constitution isn't the guiding document of political discussion and referencing it to justify a law is still just a fallacy.

Edit: haha, yup, called it.


I think you aren't being clear about your context then. You are complaining about how people in the US think about rights, but then complaining about me bringing up the document from where we generally look to for those rights...


Complaining? Nope. This is what I said:

"It means that your perspective has been warped by propaganda that does not exist elsewhere. In addition, your fundamental understanding of the issue will always be flawed, because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy)."
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20599
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2128 times
Been thanked: 1671 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:46 pm

exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:And you're going to do it again here. "But the US Constitution..." But the US Constitution isn't the guiding document of political discussion and referencing it to justify a law is still just a fallacy.

Edit: haha, yup, called it.


I think you aren't being clear about your context then. You are complaining about how people in the US think about rights, but then complaining about me bringing up the document from where we generally look to for those rights...


Complaining? Nope. This is what I said:

"It means that your perspective has been warped by propaganda that does not exist elsewhere. In addition, your fundamental understanding of the issue will always be flawed, because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy)."


And... it isn't mythology. The right is in the constitution, which makes it a real and concrete thing. And that is what you don't seem to grasp.

What you think is that it is in the constitution because people believe in natural rights, but even that isn't true. It is because people still believe in the reasons of why we should keep and bear arms. I'd wager that almost everyone in the general populace wouldn't even really get the nuances between a natural right and a legal right after a six hour lecture on the subject.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:06 pm

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:
Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:And you're going to do it again here. "But the US Constitution..." But the US Constitution isn't the guiding document of political discussion and referencing it to justify a law is still just a fallacy.

Edit: haha, yup, called it.


I think you aren't being clear about your context then. You are complaining about how people in the US think about rights, but then complaining about me bringing up the document from where we generally look to for those rights...


Complaining? Nope. This is what I said:

"It means that your perspective has been warped by propaganda that does not exist elsewhere. In addition, your fundamental understanding of the issue will always be flawed, because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy)."


And... it isn't mythology. The right is in the constitution, which makes it a real and concrete thing. And that is what you don't seem to grasp.

What you think is that it is in the constitution because people believe in natural rights, but even that isn't true. It is because people still believe in the reasons of why we should keep and bear arms. I'd wager that almost everyone in the general populace wouldn't even really get the nuances between a natural right and a legal right after a six hour lecture on the subject.


Fine, it's not a mythology. Here you may choose a substitute word, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Doesn't really matter because the point remains.

What I think is hilarious is that you are denying the importance of this mythology, and yet...

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.


Here again we see exactly what I am talking about playing out in real life. You start building upon shit and no matter what you build or how high, it will always be surrounded by it.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20599
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2128 times
Been thanked: 1671 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:26 pm

exploited wrote:Fine, it's not a mythology. Here you may choose a substitute word, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Doesn't really matter because the point remains.

What I think is hilarious is that you are denying the importance of this mythology, and yet...

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.


Here again we see exactly what I am talking about playing out in real life. You start building upon shit and no matter what you build or how how, it will always be surrounded by it.


I'm not denying the importance of the concept of natural rights. I'm denying the idea that they are the sole reason for rights in the US. You don't need to think of something as a natural right to believe it is a right you need to have and one that should be protected.

As for Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


You are cherry-picking one phrase out of a much larger body of work, the near entirety of which discusses the constitution itself. Not natural rights. It is a ruling on clear constitutional reading.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:39 pm

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:Fine, it's not a mythology. Here you may choose a substitute word, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Doesn't really matter because the point remains.

What I think is hilarious is that you are denying the importance of this mythology, and yet...

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.


Here again we see exactly what I am talking about playing out in real life. You start building upon shit and no matter what you build or how how, it will always be surrounded by it.


I'm not denying the importance of the concept of natural rights. I'm denying the idea that they are the sole reason for rights in the US. You don't need to think of something as a natural right to believe it is a right you need to have and one that should be protected.

As for Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


You are cherry-picking one phrase out of a much larger body of work, the near entirety of which discusses the constitution itself. Not natural rights. It is a ruling on clear constitutional reading.


And here you are AGAIN making up something I never said. I never said that was the only reason to support guns or owning guns. Nor did I say that was the sole source of rights in the US. Nor did I claim that was the sole reasoning of the court, although it is the CORE HOLDING. What I said, quite specifically... You know what? Never mind. I've already posted what I said enough.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20599
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2128 times
Been thanked: 1671 times

Previous

Return to The Soapbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest