Skip to main content

View Diary: To those who want an armed society. (277 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, your right to be secure in your (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "home" (which, again, is a word not included in the text of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure in one's "persons, houses, papers and effects") is in no way dependent upon your ownership or possession of a "home" and in no way requires you to buy anything.

    The right to a free press, to the extent that could be an individual right rather than a collective right, in no way requires you to buy anything. Whatever you choose to buy or feel the need to buy to exercise that right, is your business; the right itself has nothing to do with buying things.

    The "right to abortion" (if you can call it that; I prefer the "right to choose," but OK) in no way requires anyone to buy anything. The purchase of medical services is incidental to the right; the right is the freedom to make the choice, not to purchase the service.

    None of these rights includes a "right" to "keep and bear" any particular consumer product. The need or desire for goods and services is incidental. The "right to keep and bear arms" is the precise opposite; it does specify a product, and ownership/possession of that product is the explicitly enumerated right.

    •  The desire for goods or services (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, FrankRose

      is also incidental in the same way to my right to be armed. It may or may not involve some commercial transaction as a possible prerequisite (though not necessarily). The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm. The right fundamentally involves a state of being, not an object.

      •  You can't "be armed" without arms. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "Keep and bear" has nothing to do with commercial transactions; as I said earlier, "keep and bear" does not mean "buy and sell," so this reference to commercial transactions is a non-sequitur. Moreover, commercial transactions are in the realm of contracts, not property.

        "To be armed" is a state of being, yes. So is "to keep and bear arms." Thank you for acknowledging that your previous statement, that "to keep and bear arms" is an "action," was wrong, and also for acknowledging that your previous statement that "the right to keep and bear arms" "fundamentally involve[d]" an "action" was also wrong.

        But "to keep and bear arms" does not mean "to be armed." Those are two different things. The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to be armed". It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You're either saying that (1) the former and the latter mean the same thing, or (2) they do not mean the same thing, and the Second Amendment means the former even though it says the latter. Either way, you're wrong.

        The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm.
        I see. So you would agree, then, that outlawing the manufacture or sale of a particular model or category of firearm would not infringe upon the "right to keep and bear arms," so long as there are some firearms available with which a person could "be armed," even if it's not the "particular arm" he wants?
    •  I understand your desire (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, FrankRose, Neo Control

      to justify your authoritarianism with a ludicrous parsing of the text. However, it isn't persuasive in the least.

      •  And, ladies and gentlemen, we have our (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Glen The Plumber

        first ad hominem attack. Thank you for playing; you've been a wonderful contestant. Bye, now!

        •  That word... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          I do not think it means what I think you think it means...

          Argmentum Ad Hominem is committed when someone rejects an argument based upon the identity of the arguer, failing to address the argument made.

          This did not just occur. Your argument was clearly rejected on it's own (lack of) merit.

          •  It absolutely did occur. (0+ / 0-)

            farmernate "reject[ed my] argument" based on "[my] authoritarianism" and "[my] desire to justify" same, not on any "lack of merit" which he utterly failed to demonstrate. He failed to refute the argument on its merits because he failed to understand its merits in the first instance, and thus deflected those failures onto me by accusing me of having and desiring to "justify" a specific character flaw.

            That is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Your failure to recognize it is of no concern to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site