The Second Amendment

[The Romulan Republic]

Their are no rights that cannot ever be violated, but their are rights that should not ever be violated.

Which is irrelevant. If there are inalienable rights, they can't be violated - if they can be violated (even if you don't think they should), they're not inalienable.

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," I don't think Thomas Jefferson was under the belief that it was physically impossible to kill someone, imprison them, or make them unhappy. If rights were impossible to violate, their would be no need to declare that they were rights. You have a rather unconventional definition of "inalienable."

Also, I see you ignored my claim of Appeal to Authority, my observation that you failed to even cite the source you were quoting (never mind explain why I should take their opinion seriously), and in fact my pointing out your utter failiure to present a single legitimate argument to justify the claim that their are no such things as rights.

[Grave_n_idle]

Their are no rights that cannot ever be violated, but their are rights that should not ever be violated.

Which is irrelevant. If there are inalienable rights, they can't be violated - if they can be violated (even if you don't think they should), they're not inalienable.

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," I don't think Thomas Jefferson was under the belief that it was physically impossible to kill someone, imprison them, or make them unhappy. If rights were impossible to violate, their would be no need to declare that they were rights. You have a rather unconventional definition of "inalienable."

Also, I see you ignored my claim of Appeal to Authority, my observation that you failed to even cite the source you were quoting (never mind explain why I should take their opinion seriously), and in fact my pointing out your utter failiure to present a single legitimate argument to justify the claim that their are no such things as rights.

Your appeal to authority claim was in error. I wasn't claiming that my argument was being supported by anyone - I don't feel that the obvious argument that rights are not inalienable needs authority.

But you're coming to the heart of it. People call rights inalienable, and sacred, and a whole host of other things. But all'rights' really are, is convenience, codified.

[Enadail]

Hmm, assault rifles I can go with you on I think, but I don't know about shotguns. Why not shotguns? They're extremely good medium-close range weapons.

Sorta why I said shotgun ammo. I'm fine with stuff like birdshot and while I'd have to do more research, I'm sure I'd be ok with basic ammo, but for example, there are military grade ammunitions available to the public, designed specifically to kill a person. I think the point of a civilian owning a gun isn't to kill, but to defend. I think stuff like the rubber slugs or regular ammo do plenty well at stopping people.

This I vehemently disagree. Having a large population carrying concealed weapons is a good deterrent against crime. After all, would you want to commit a crime knowing that there are probably people around you who are law-abiding and packing, but you don't know who?

Is it legal to shoot someone if they try to mug you? And if they die, you're held on what, manslaughter? If this is the case, then I feel this way all the more. While I agree with your point, I think the increased risk of someone being able to hide a gun to be used for malice isn't worth it. If people want personal defense, I say martial arts, pepper spray, and tasers. If someone comes after you from a range, the situation chances admittedly, but we can't cover every situation imo...

I accepted "at-cost" as a qualifier. I disagree with having a bi-yearly or yearly certification, as that usually comes with fees. It's already required by law for you to report if any gun is stolen, and failure to do so is, in of itself, a crime. That should be sufficient.

I see it like a car inspection. Your car can't be overpolluting, or unsafe... why should a gun be in improper care, risking a misfire that could injure an innocent or the wielder? And while someone could report a stolen weapon, lets say someone purchases a weapon legally, then files the ID number, hoping to use the weapon in a small crime. The person then escapes, but leaves the weapon behind? It is admittedly a very small number of people who use a legal weapon for a crime, and a vast majority are law abiding, but to me... if even one life can be saved, its worth considering.

[Stolitland]

I have some time to spend, so I'll kill a few minutes here.

Lets start wit this: my ideology on owning guns, if people are to own them is that it is for defense against crimes, namely on your own property.

Defense is one of many reasons why someone would choose to own a firearm. I own a Remington 870. I own a 28" barrel with a modified choke, and a 18" barrel with a cylinder bore (no choke). I use the 28" barrel for shooting skeet, and the 18" barrel for home defense. I use the same firearm for two different purposes.

Other people may own similar firearms for collector purposes, for their value (financial or sentimental), or for any other legitimate reason.

First, as I said, I don't think things like most shotguns (or I guess in the case of shotguns, the ammos more important) or assault rifles should be available to the public. I don't think they aid in defense any better then a handgun, thus... assault.

Having fired many handguns, shotguns, and rifles (including the often maligned AR-15) back to back, I will say that it is far easier to hit a target with a shoulder-fired weapon than it is to fire accurately with a handgun. It's not particularly difficult at the range, while shooting at paper targets, but under stress may be different. Having never actually had to use my shotgun for defensive purposes (thank God!), I wouldn't know.

I do find it interesting that you take issue with shotgun ammunition. A shotshell is just "whatever" stuffed inside a plastic wad, which is inside a plastic shell. This can take the form of very small birdshot, larger buckshot, single projectiles (slugs), flechette rounds, some combination of the aforementioned, less-lethal rubber balls, or even chemical compositions designed to produce a flame or reaction. I hear that there's even a taser-like projectile that you can purchase now, although I have no experience with those. I currently own various sizes of birdshot, various sizes of buckshot, and various slugs. Which of those do you take issue with?

Second, I don't think people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. If we take your premise that guns can be easier to conceal then drugs as true, then in a place where anyone can carry a gun hidden, it makes it all that harder to find who is carrying a gun legally and who isn't.

The "open carry" v. "concealed carry" debate is one that some firearms enthusiasts have. The two main theories supporting concealed carry are first, that a deterrent effect exists because the criminals are unaware of who is armed and may be reluctant to attack any individual for fear of being shot; second, a criminal who knows that someone is armed will be able to wait for the opportune moment to attempt to grab the weapon from the lawful carrier.

I am unaware of statistical data regarding the deterrent effect, and I have not seen data indicating that open carriers have that problem. However, police officers DO have that issue when apprehending resisting suspects. I believe that either open carry or concealed carry should be legal and left to the discretion of the law abiding citizen.

Third, I think the open gun show trading needs to go. If you want to trade guns at a gun show, background checks and registering should be required, same as if you bought a new gun. I think people should have to account for their weapons in the form of a bi-yearly or yearly certification, to maintain your registration on a gun. Frankly, I think combat knives should too, but then you run into the issue of chef's knives, and I think we start a new line there. I agree with having a safety course, but I see it as part of getting your license, and see no reason for it to be free.

Such a system would be ripe for abuse. I've heard many fellow firearms enthusiasts that have said that they would be amenable to a registration system if there was some sort of guarantee that there would be no further control. However, such a guarantee is impossible to give, and if Britain is any indication, registration makes it quite easy to know who the "evil gun-owners" are once a ban is placed in effect.

I also find it to be interesting that you advocate restrictions on "combat knives." Not being a knife person, I do not understand what you mean. Please define the term. Note that as you define it, you will probably think of terms which have nothing to do with the ultimate lethality (sharp point, sharp edge), and will probably focus on aesthetic characteristics, such as serrations or mechanisms of operation. Such definitions are used in American courts to define laws surrounding firearms.

For example, it is unlawful to add a forward grip to a pistol (which makes it an AOW) without a tax stamp. If you add a shoulder stock to that pistol, you have converted the pistol into a rifle (which, if the barrel is <16", makes it a short-barreled rifle), also requiring a tax stamp. An AR-15 with a 14.5" barrel will be a "short-barreled rifle" (subject to government control and registration) if it comes with a flash suppressor that is not "permanently attached" so as to meet the 16" barrel requirement length. These restrictions are among the thousands facing law abiding citizens in an effort to control crime, and as you can probably see, do little to the ultimate effect of the weapon.

[Stolitland]

Sorta why I said shotgun ammo. I'm fine with stuff like birdshot and while I'd have to do more research, I'm sure I'd be ok with basic ammo, but for example, there are military grade ammunitions available to the public, designed specifically to kill a person. I think the point of a civilian owning a gun isn't to kill, but to defend. I think stuff like the rubber slugs or regular ammo do plenty well at stopping people.

It's interesting that you bring up "military grade ammunition." Ammunition that is military grade (particularly the 00 buckshot) is pretty bad. The buckshot has a wide spread, no buffering, and is generally inaccurate beyond a fairly short distance. Meanwhile, standard "hunting" ammunition can be more powerful and hold tighter groupings over a longer distance.

Is it legal to shoot someone if they try to mug you? And if they die, you're held on what, manslaughter? If this is the case, then I feel this way all the more. While I agree with your point, I think the increased risk of someone being able to hide a gun to be used for malice isn't worth it. If people want personal defense, I say martial arts, pepper spray, and tasers. If someone comes after you from a range, the situation chances admittedly, but we can't cover every situation imo...

Various states have their own laws, but most provide that someone who reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm may use deadly force to protect themselves. I am not aware of any jurisdictions that do not provide for this.

I see it like a car inspection. Your car can't be overpolluting, or unsafe... why should a gun be in improper care, risking a misfire that could injure an innocent or the wielder? And while someone could report a stolen weapon, lets say someone purchases a weapon legally, then files the ID number, hoping to use the weapon in a small crime. The person then escapes, but leaves the weapon behind? It is admittedly a very small number of people who use a legal weapon for a crime, and a vast majority are law abiding, but to me... if even one life can be saved, its worth considering.

Certain systems have been attempted, and have met with no success in the United States.

[Cameroi]

i think everyone should have a right to bear only such arms as they manufacture themselves. just as i feel the same way about growing one's own herb. its the buying, selling and mass production and mass importation that creates the problems.

no one should be denied the right to possess anything, even nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
but again only such as they are capable of making for themselves as a hobby.

[The Romulan Republic]

Your appeal to authority claim was in error. I wasn't claiming that my argument was being supported by anyone - I don't feel that the obvious argument that rights are not inalienable needs authority.

So your position is so self-evidently correct that it requires no defense? How self-comforting that delusion must be.

But if your sole argument is to quote some unnamed or hypothetical philosopher, expect its legitimacy to be rejected forthwith.

But you're coming to the heart of it. People call rights inalienable, and sacred, and a whole host of other things. But all'rights' really are, is convenience, codified.

Again, you seem to have an odd definition of inalienable.

But rights don't have to have some divine source to be legitimate. If they are simply principles or standards of behavior that humans choose to recognize and protect for the good of themselves and society, or as you put it, for convenience, then they still serve a valid purpose, based in demonstrable nessessity, and are still legitimate.

[Enadail]

Last post before I sleep, promise

Other people may own similar firearms for collector purposes, for their value (financial or sentimental), or for any other legitimate reason.

Personally, I'm iffy on both those, and so prefer to err on the side of caution. I am not closed to them however.

Having fired many handguns, shotguns, and rifles (including the often maligned AR-15) back to back, I will say that it is far easier to hit a target with a shoulder-fired weapon than it is to fire accurately with a handgun. It's not particularly difficult at the range, while shooting at paper targets, but under stress may be different. Having never actually had to use my shotgun for defensive purposes (thank God!), I wouldn't know.

I'll agree that shoulder mounted is easier. But to me, it falls on ease vs potential abuse. Again, I talk about most cases, because I don't think its fair to discuss the rarer cases as the starting point, but in most cases, a handgun or shotgun will defend as well as a rifle, most often as a deterrence.

Which of those do you take issue with?

As I put above, I'm opposed to rounds like flechette, chemical, etc. I think ammunition that goes above and beyond defense is unnecessary for the public. If rubber ball was more effective or the taser rounds (I did some research on these in college) were more widely available, I think I'd only favor those types and hunting rounds.

I believe that either open carry or concealed carry should be legal and left to the discretion of the law abiding citizen.

I think one problem is we leave a lot of debates to the citizen, then complain when something goes wrong. We can't have it both ways.

Such a system would be ripe for abuse. I've heard many fellow firearms enthusiasts that have said that they would be amenable to a registration system if there was some sort of guarantee that there would be no further control. However, such a guarantee is impossible to give, and if Britain is any indication, registration makes it quite easy to know who the "evil gun-owners" are once a ban is placed in effect.

I personally think right now, open trades are already an abuse. To me, its like checking out a library book then just trading it for another library book. The library's not comin after you, so as long as you're happy with what went on, its no big deal. Again, I'm sure a vast majority of people are law abiding even in this, but if it can save even one life, I'm fine with it.

My problem with gun enthusiasts who want one time control is simple: most of them agree guns should be used responsibly, but seem unwilling to budge in a direction that puts slightly more emphasis on their showing they're responsible in exchange for increased safety. For most people, this'll be a "take my gun case locked down to location x, take half an hour and get my guns checked, come home". I know the argument of "if you have nothing to fear, why not" is a hot topic, but in this case, we are talking about weapons.

I also find it to be interesting that you advocate restrictions on "combat knives." Not being a knife person, I do not understand what you mean. Please define the term. Note that as you define it, you will probably think of terms which have nothing to do with the ultimate lethality (sharp point, sharp edge), and will probably focus on aesthetic characteristics, such as serrations or mechanisms of operation. Such definitions are used in American courts to define laws surrounding firearms.

I might be mistaken here. I have a friend of is a knife enthusiast, and he often refers to knives as either combat or non-combat. I'm not sure the distinction, and I assumed it was universal. As I said, its a gray line.

I really do think most people are responsible. I just think as a whole, they're unwilling to do a little more for the general safety. I think there are a large number of gun-control advocates who don't want to eliminate all guns, but control them, but all I hear from the other side is "We're following the law as it stands, so why punish us? Punish the people abusing them." They seem unwilling to compromise any more then in the most basic fashion. Ultimately, you get no middle ground, so both sides grow more distant.

[Stolitland]

Last post before I sleep, promise

Have a pleasant evening, then.

I'll agree that shoulder mounted is easier. But to me, it falls on ease vs potential abuse. Again, I talk about most cases, because I don't think its fair to discuss the rarer cases as the starting point, but in most cases, a handgun or shotgun will defend as well as a rifle, most often as a deterrence.

I agree that, in the vast majority of cases, a handgun or shotgun will suffice. In fact, statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that just under 90% of all justifiable homicides are committed with a handgun. Also, while I am a firm advocate for the Second Amendment and advocate the right of the citizenry to bear handguns, rifles, and shotguns, the vast majority of murders and even mass shootings have been committed not with more powerful long guns, but with handguns.

Rifles are not commonly used by criminals due to their lack of concealability. One, of course, has the occasional nutjob who goes on a shooting rampage, and that is truly a tragedy. However, said nutjob could do as much, or more, damage with a propane tank and a road flare, an SUV, any number of poisonous chemicals, or any other innocent object converted to malicious use.

As I put above, I'm opposed to rounds like flechette, chemical, etc. I think ammunition that goes above and beyond defense is unnecessary for the public. If rubber ball was more effective or the taser rounds (I did some research on these in college) were more widely available, I think I'd only favor those types and hunting rounds.

Flechette rounds actually do less damage to human tissue than buckshot. The chemical rounds for shotguns are actually meant for show and novelty purposes. I am not aware of any shotgun shell that fires some quantity of nerve gas or biological agent, for instance.

I think one problem is we leave a lot of debates to the citizen, then complain when something goes wrong. We can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, it rarely goes wrong. CCW holders tend to be remarkably law abiding, and in states that do not regulate open carry, open carriers have been very law abiding.

Some interesting reading.

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf

I personally think right now, open trades are already an abuse. To me, its like checking out a library book then just trading it for another library book. The library's not comin after you, so as long as you're happy with what went on, its no big deal. Again, I'm sure a vast majority of people are law abiding even in this, but if it can save even one life, I'm fine with it.

The same argument can be made for nearly any restriction on liberty; even regulating speech, the free exercise of religion, or permitting warrantless searches in the home.

My problem with gun enthusiasts who want one time control is simple: most of them agree guns should be used responsibly, but seem unwilling to budge in a direction that puts slightly more emphasis on their showing they're responsible in exchange for increased safety. For most people, this'll be a "take my gun case locked down to location x, take half an hour and get my guns checked, come home". I know the argument of "if you have nothing to fear, why not" is a hot topic, but in this case, we are talking about weapons.

That is due to that lack of guarantee that I mentioned previously. Every law abiding citizen wants robbers and murderers off the streets. No one wants the government to confiscate their firearms. It's a problem, and it is due in part to the anti-gun crowd that this problem exists in the first place.

I might be mistaken here. I have a friend of is a knife enthusiast, and he often refers to knives as either combat or non-combat. I'm not sure the distinction, and I assumed it was universal. As I said, its a gray line.

Ah, but gray laws tend to discourage lawful behavior by the law abiding, and encourage dishonest or disreputable behavior by the dishonest. Courts will err on the side of the defendant in the case of an ambiguity.

I really do think most people are responsible. I just think as a whole, they're unwilling to do a little more for the general safety. I think there are a large number of gun-control advocates who don't want to eliminate all guns, but control them, but all I hear from the other side is "We're following the law as it stands, so why punish us? Punish the people abusing them." They seem unwilling to compromise any more then in the most basic fashion. Ultimately, you get no middle ground, so both sides grow more distant.

You will find people who would be willing to compromise, and people who are not. Ultimately, the ever present threat of increasing government regulation keeps everyone erring on the side of liberty.

[DMistan]

Which is irrelevant. If there are inalienable rights, they can't be violated - if they can be violated (even if you don't think they should), they're not inalienable.

To "alienate a right" is to surrender or transfer that right. Inalienable rights can not be waived, surrendered or transferred.
An "inalienable right" can indeed be violated.

[DMistan]

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," .

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. Appeals to its Authority are almost always based on the misconception that it is a legal document (it is not) and therefore, fallacious.

Just about the only thing for which you could Appeal to the Authority of the Declaration of Independence is that the US is an independent nation as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence.

Other than that, refer to the Constitution, United States Code, or your local State Laws.

[DMistan]

Why would the government want people to own weapons

What the government wants is irrelevant. The government is not properly the individual's master, nor does it properly exist for the sake of its own self-aggrandizement. If what the government wants conflicts with the rights of the individual, then the government must necessarily lose.

Utter tot.

If the government conflicts with the rights of ENOUGH individuals, it must lose. If it conflicts with YOU? You don't matter. You're not even a blip.

Bluth, Saint Clair asked a legitimate question. How does it benefit the state? At one point in time, it was very useful to have state militias ready to go. We were once a set of loosely organized colonies, you know.
The government is not necessarily wrong when it overrides an individual. See Subjects such as: Eminent Domain, The Sedition Act , etc...

Grave_n_idle, It does matter when the Government transgresses against the rights of even one individual. And it had better have a good reason for doing so.

If the government rules that even one lone Klansman can not march down the streets of Harlem... maybe that's for the best? Maybe not. I leave that to the courts to sort out.

If the government rules that allowing concealed firearms in bars is a really really BAD thing... maybe that's for the best? Life in the wild wild west was ugly, brutish and short.

[The Romulan Republic]

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," .

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. Appeals to its Authority are almost always based on the misconception that it is a legal document (it is not) and therefore, fallacious.

Never claimed it was a legal document. You might want to reread my posts and rethink your assumptions.

Just about the only thing for which you could Appeal to the Authority of the Declaration of Independence is that the US is an independent nation as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence.

Other than that, refer to the Constitution, United States Code, or your local State Laws.

I was using it as a well-known example of the use of the term "inalienable rights," and ridiculing the idea that "inalienable" means "cannot possibly be violated." This was in response to the apparent strange definition of "inalienable" that Grave _n_ idle seems to prefer. I certainly wasn't appealing to its authority on anything (let alone as a legal document), merely giving it as an example of how to properly use a term.

Why don't you respond to what I actually said, rather than the imaginary comments you'd evidently prefer to respond to?

[DMistan]

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," .

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. Appeals to its Authority are almost always based on the misconception that it is a legal document (it is not) and therefore, fallacious.

Never claimed it was a legal document. You might want to reread my posts and rethink your assumptions.

Alright.

Last time I checked, when the Declaration of Independence referred to "inalienable rights," I don't think Thomas Jefferson was under the belief that it was physically impossible to kill someone, imprison them, or make them unhappy. If rights were impossible to violate, their would be no need to declare that they were rights. You have a rather unconventional definition of "inalienable."

Also, I see you ignored my claim of Appeal to Authority, my observation that you failed to even cite the source you were quoting (never mind explain why I should take their opinion seriously), and in fact my pointing out your utter failiure to present a single legitimate argument to justify the claim that their are no such things as rights.

I have no comment on your claim that there was an Appeal to Authority, except that you appeal to the authority of Jefferson, when you could have just opened a dictionary.

[DMistan]

I am an individual. Sacred, sovereign, and inviolate. Since all individuals possess the same rights, violating an individual's rights is violating the rights of all individuals.

And government is created to secure our rights. Your rights must be limited in some respects to protect the rights of everyone else.

That is the premise of our Republic.

I agree with TCT

ERROR! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
*reset* *reanalyse*

I agree with TCT

ERROR! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
*reset* *reanalyse*

RECURSIVE STACK OVERFLOW

We're experiencing technical difficulties. We apologise for the inconvenience.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have no comment on your claim that there was an Appeal to Authority, except that you appeal to the authority of Jefferson, when you could have just opened a dictionary.

Perhaps. But my point is still valid, which is that inalienable doesn't mean what Grave_n_idle seems to think it means.

[Big Jim P]

The only "rights" that exist are those you are willing to fight for, thus the need for guns.

[DMistan]

The only "rights" that exist are those you are willing to fight for, thus the need for guns.

[sarcasm]
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.
[\sarcasm]

[Big Jim P]

The only "rights" that exist are those you are willing to fight for, thus the need for guns.

[sarcasm]
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.
[\sarcasm]

Your sarcasm tag was unnecessary. Heinlein was right when he wrote that.

[Tranquilizer Cyborgs]

Who cares about "right" to bear arms... just give me some effing weapons already!!!!

[UNIverseVERSE]

Depends on the context of the danger. I've heard the 9/11 hijackers used ceramic knives which didn't get detected by the metal detectors; IF that's the case such knives would probably have been more dangerous than guns...

They didn't. They used boxcutters. Several reasons for this, including the fact that civilian manufacturers of ceramic knives include metal in the handle precisely so they can be picked up on metal detectors, and that such knives have serious issues (like breaking) if you try to slice through much more than a tomato or piece of chicken breast with one.

[Galloism]

This I vehemently disagree. Having a large population carrying concealed weapons is a good deterrent against crime. After all, would you want to commit a crime knowing that there are probably people around you who are law-abiding and packing, but you don't know who?

Is it legal to shoot someone if they try to mug you? And if they die, you're held on what, manslaughter? If this is the case, then I feel this way all the more. While I agree with your point, I think the increased risk of someone being able to hide a gun to be used for malice isn't worth it. If people want personal defense, I say martial arts, pepper spray, and tasers. If someone comes after you from a range, the situation chances admittedly, but we can't cover every situation imo...

If someone tries to mug you, and you shoot them, in most states (with a few exceptions where there's "equal force" clauses) you've engaged in self defense and are free as a bird. However, should they show a knife or other deadly weapon, then it's reasonable to feel your life is in danger and you can shoot them.

I accepted "at-cost" as a qualifier. I disagree with having a bi-yearly or yearly certification, as that usually comes with fees. It's already required by law for you to report if any gun is stolen, and failure to do so is, in of itself, a crime. That should be sufficient.

I see it like a car inspection. Your car can't be overpolluting, or unsafe... why should a gun be in improper care, risking a misfire that could injure an innocent or the wielder? And while someone could report a stolen weapon, lets say someone purchases a weapon legally, then files the ID number, hoping to use the weapon in a small crime. The person then escapes, but leaves the weapon behind? It is admittedly a very small number of people who use a legal weapon for a crime, and a vast majority are law abiding, but to me... if even one life can be saved, its worth considering.

There's no yearly or biyearly car inspections in most states either. Once it's originally inspected, you can drive it as long as you like without getting it inspected unless you're ticketed for driving an unsafe vehicle. Then, as a condition of the conviction on that ticket, you may be forced to have it inspected.

Certain states and cities do have annual or biannual inspections, but it's by no means the norm. When I was a teenager, I drove a 1972 Buick Skylark that was last inspected in... 1972.

And you are correct - it is an extremely small number of legal weapons that are used in crime. However, given the 2 million times per year that guns are used in defense against crime, further regulation (causing less widespread gun ownership), is more likely, in my view, to increase deaths rather than decrease them. Sometimes, we have to take the good with the bad.

[Milks Empire]

If someone's gonna have a gun, they ought to be mentally competent and trained on how to use it properly. Short of that, have at it.

[Grave_n_idle]

So your position is so self-evidently correct that it requires no defense? How self-comforting that delusion must be.

I don't see the problem.

Condition A = Statement: "Rights are inalienable"

Condition B = Evidence shows that: "in the real world, rights are NOT inalienable"

Therefore, Condition A must not be true.

Yes, it IS so self-evident that it requires no additional defence.

Again, you seem to have an odd definition of inalienable.

But rights don't have to have some divine source to be legitimate. If they are simply principles or standards of behavior that humans choose to recognize and protect for the good of themselves and society, or as you put it, for convenience, then they still serve a valid purpose, based in demonstrable nessessity, and are still legitimate.

I'm not arguing they don't serve a valid purpose. I'm arguing there is nothing intrinsic or absolute.

It amuses me somewhat that what APPEARS to be your attempt to attack my position, actually supports my position, and attacks the 'sacred' inalienable' rights argument for me.

[Grave_n_idle]

I was using it as a well-known example of the use of the term "inalienable rights,"

And what do YOU think inalienable means?

You seem to think I'm using it inappropriately, but you haven't actually explained how.