Basis for outrage (should have been "Basis for the Argument")

[ZeSpectre]

Every argument has a threshhold like this one, a point at which you cannot convince someone of one of your basic precepts, and they cannot convince you of one or more of theirs. If basic precepts are the same, then an argument may well end in agreement.

If basic precepts are NOT the same, any discussion about anything - including guns - will inevitably reach a point where no further discussion is possible.

Well said.

So I suppose the first part of the debate would seem to be determining if the debate can even happen.

Does the person you are debating with agree that...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If we can't start from that point, then perhaps debate really is pointless.

So in attempting to create well reasoned debate points for RKBA I am starting from a certain assumption point. One that has, at it's root, the declaration quoted from above.

 

[elChupacabra!]

ZeSpectre -

That is a most excellent point.

Most Americans, when faced with the Declaration of Independance, will immediately say "yes, I agree with that." You may then proceed with the argument... and if you reach a point at which they respond "no, I don't believe you may use force to defend a life..." etc. etc. etc., then you backtrack to the "unaliable rights of life, liberty and property..." until you find where the point of disagreement is.

By starting from such a strong foundation, you may actually succeed in exposing the absurdity of the opposing viewpoint, and you might, if the person is open-minded, actually change their basic precept.

Either that, or they will have to denounce the Declaration of Independance, which speaks volumes about their character right there.

Either way, they can't hide behind a "we just disagree" argument. By using the DoI as a starting point, it's not just you they disagree with, it's the founding Document of this Nation - and that adds a great deal of weight to the argument.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Either way, they can't hide behind a "we just disagree" argument. By using the DoI as a starting point, it's not just you they disagree with, it's the founding Document of this Nation - and that adds a great deal of weight to the argument.

Yes, my thinking was this. If you disagree with this document (the Declaration) you are essentially disagreeing with this country (the United States of America) and therefore have NO BUSINESS whatsoever in attempting to determine policy for this country let alone individuals within it.

 

[3KillerBs]

After 24 hours of thought, either I completely fail to understand what you're looking for or I completely fail to understand how arguing from "fundamental human rights" can fail to be adequate for anyone other than the sort of idiot who emotes instead of thinks.

People who substitute emotion for thought can't be convinced by any sort of argument. They can only be marginalized until a mugging by reality re-activates their brains.

If you're looking for some sort of analogy to use to help those who are merely ignorant -- rather than stupid or close-minded -- grasp second amendment rights comparisons to freedom of speech and freedom of the press sounds likely to me. Specific scenarios would have to be worked out for specific audiences though.

 

[Vaarok]

Yes, they actually can be. The trick is to argue from a point of such simplicity and irrefutable logic and keep on track until they become aware of their own absurdity.

I actually think using things like the Bill of Rights is counterproductive, because it shifts recipient of the burden of proof to an external source, as opposed to "why don't you trust ME."

The idea is to keep them on the defensive by limiting their options to evade by calling your sources into question. Person-to-person "why don't I have a right to exist and why do you have a right to tell me what my safety is or isn't worth" is far more direct than using some third-party source that can be perceived as having an inherent fault or some form of bias against your opponent.

Yes, you can tailor an argument to draw in sources, but every damn gun control thread I get involved in always drops into Godwins Law by somebody who thinks their argument is a sledgehammer of shock-value, completely screwing those of us who've been subtle and using a poniard of reason.

Remember, the slow blade penetrates the shield...

 

[berettaprofessor]

You have much more faith in human nature than I do if you believe that Barbara Streisand/BradyBunch/substitute your favorite strident anti-gun liberal/ will ever recognize her/their own absurdities.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Deleted

 

[Beatnik]

A couple thoughts...

Appeal to the Constitution is futile. If anyone really cared what the Constitution says, this would be a very different country: gold money, passenger trains between cities, war a distant memory, and low cost marijuana cigarettes and 5 gallon toilets for everyone who wants them.

The law is not an impediment to tyrants: it is their primary weapon. It's the way to beat people over the head when they don't agree with 51% of the population. Nothing more.

To answer the OP, the basis for my outrage is exactly that.
I'm my own man, and I aim to keep it that way. I don't like being shoved around, least of all for no reason.

Those who want to take my guns make no secret of the fact that they want to take away my individuality.

I'm a grown up, and I can make grown up decisions - like how much house I can afford, whether to buy new cars every two years, what to do with my phony money investments, whether to get that wrist looked at, and whether to shoot the man who is taking a crowbar to my front door.

I don't care whether others are incapable of making those decisions. I am capable. They tell me I'm not - but my unforclosed house, my lack of car payment, my stable investments, and my healed wrist say otherwise.

And I know that I'm not alone - I number in the millions. So I guess the basis of my outrage is this: it's working for me. It's working for you. And as you and I are the ones they're always coming after, they seem never to have heard the old saw about what to do if it ain't broke.

Not that I'm saying any of this is good anti-anti material.

 

[Tommygunn]

Appeal to the Constitution is futile. If anyone really cared what the Constitution says, this would be a very different country: gold money, passenger trains between cities, war a distant memory, and low cost marijuana cigarettes and 5 gallon toilets for everyone who wants them.

War a distant memory? Says whom? Even the founders had the Barbary Wars and then the War of 1812. Is there some clause in the Constitution prohibiting war?
And where does it say anything about trains?
And -- WHAT???!!!! LOW COST MARIJUANA cigarettes? There's a clause in the Constitution that says we're entitled to low cost marijuana???

Look, I'm not saying our country hasn't been *#&$%^ -up bigtime by politicians, but come on, let's not drink too much kool-aid.

 

[Blofeld]

I'm just wondering at exactly what moment in time it was determined that it is better to be killed by a thug than to defend my life. What was the point in time where self defense became unfashionable?

 

[elChupacabra!]

You know, I look much older now than I did 10 years ago. Looking at a picture of myself from 10 years ago, it's impossible to miss the difference.

But no two days in my life have I looked in the mirror and said "I definitely look older today than I did yesterday."

Like the frog in the cool water, biding his time as the heat is slowly applied...

 

[RPCVYemen]

then the Constitution, which can be amended by a great enough majority - is all that stands between your rights and your enemies.

That's pretty much the way it is. Does that make you unhappy?

I have lived in two countries where the people did not have the rights we have in the US - Yemen and Somalia. I have deeply grateful to have those rights. But I think that any notion that those rights are in any way "natural" is just poppycock.

I presume that YOU believe you have a right to continue to exist, don't you? I don't know what else to call this but a natural right.

I can't imagine being able to demonstrate the existence of any such right. What is the evidence for the existence of such a right? Or more clearly, what is a fair test of the existence of the right to exit? Can you specify any evidence that if it were true, would disprove the existence of a "natural right"?

Mike

 

[3KillerBs]

Vaarok,

The problem with that is that the ones who only emote always end up reverting back to "Well, I feel its wrong," or "I don't feel safe around guns," as their unbeatable trump card.

When they value their emotional response above all else you can't get anywhere with any form of reason. Especially since these people are usually the ones who also deny the existence of objective truth and go around saying things like "perception is reality," -- as if my colorblind acquaintance's inability to perceive blue actually removed those wavelengths from the spectrum.

You simply cannot get anywhere with people who refuse to acknowledge that reality is reality regardless of how they feel about it until reality cracks their delusion by hitting them over the head with a hammer.

 

[elChupacabra!]

That's pretty much the way it is. Does that make you unhappy?

Actually, in the Free United States, my firearms, coupled with my skill and willingness to use them, stand between my rights and my enemies. If I die in defense of my rights, so be it - but believe me, it's one hell of a lot more than just the Constitution standing between me and my enemies. That's not at all "pretty much the way it is" HERE, buddy.

I can't imagine being able to demonstrate the existence of any such right. What is the evidence for the existence of such a right? Or more clearly, what is a fair test of the existence of the right to exit? Can you specify any evidence that if it were true, would disprove the existence of a "natural right"?

First, I think you mean "prove" rather than "disprove" in that last sentence... but it's empirically verifiable. No living thing, including yourself or myself, or a dog or worm or single-celled organism, when attacked, threatened, choked, punched, or stabbed refuses to seek to preserve its own existance.

Fight or flight - but self-preservation is the most basic and natural of all instincts on earth. You don't have to recognize that a right underlies that instinct, and it appears that you refuse to do so - but anyone may empirically verify that this is the way it is, throughout the entire animal kingdom, up to and including humanity.

It would follow, to someone attempting to codify rights, that the most basic and natural of all instincts shouldn't be artificially suppressed by any law or measure of man. I, for one, refuse to accept that my ability to continue to exist is contingent on anyone else's decision, beliefs or directions. I believe that makes it a right.

Now, perhaps coming from Somalia and Yemen, your perception of the value of human life differs materially from mine. If that's the case, then we've reached that irreducable, unreconcilable point in the discussion that I've mentioned above, and we can't go any further in the discussion, because we have incompatable fundamental beliefs.

 

[RPCVYemen]

If we can't start from that point, then perhaps debate really is pointless.

Maybe the appropriate point at which to start is the following:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is avoids the "natural right" nonsense.

The founding fathers had the following goals:

1. form a more perfect Union
2. establish Justice
3. insure domestic Tranquility
4. provide for the common defence
5. promote general welfare
6. and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

To achieve those goals, they ordained and established a government with internal checks and balances and then added a set of restrictions on the actions of that government.

Those restrictions on the actions of government are called "rights". That list of rights has been amended and changed in our history, and we have accepted some of the rights described by English common law. None of those rights are any more or less "natural" than speaking English or a buying a book with a $20 bill.


Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

That is avoids the "natural right" nonsense.

But you presuppose that it's nonsense without actually addressing my argument.

Bypassing and sidestepping the arguments ZeSpectre and I are proposing is not equivalent with winning the argument. You do not earn the right to call it "nonsense" until you actually disprove its existence, which you haven't done.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are in the vast minority not only on this board but in this country if you deny that natural rights exist.

This is not to say that being in the minority makes you wrong... but it's going to make it difficult for you to engage in meaningful discussions about things like self-defense with those who do believe in natural, "inalianeble" rights.

Further, the argument you propose would really be a good one for an ANTI-gunner to start with, for, as you say, the Constitutional guarantee of the right to self-defense can easily be amended.

But I believe there is an underlying right there that cannot be taken away - that every living thing understands when it's threatened, that you apparently refuse to acknowledge, or address when argued.

 

[Cosmoline]

the simple fact is that we, as RKBA supporters, CAN actually remove a sidearm and lock it up somewhere even if being forced to take that action is unjust. However a black person has no option to shed their skin.

The black person was never asked to change skin color. They were asked to do things they *could* do. Sit at the back of the bus. Use only certain public facilities. Go to one restaurant instead of another. The difference is those laws only discriminated against one group, whereas anti-gun laws discriminate against all citizens.

 

[Mr. D]

RPCVYemen,

I'm going to wade in for a minute in support of natural rights. I'm sure you will agree that we have rights, natural or not. Well, if our rights are not natural rights that we are born with, then what are they and where do they come from? The government? The Constitution? Either way, that means that if the government were to take away our rights, or if the constitution was amended to do so, we would have no ground to stand on when demanding our liberty back.

~Dale

 

[elChupacabra!]

Mr D,

From what I've heard from RPCVYemen, I don't think he would have any grounds to demand his liberty back, and I don't think he'd do it.

To be honest, I'm not really sure why he's participating in this thread, other than to disagree with it's premise, because that's all I've seen him actually do so far.

Thank God this is not Yemen or Somalia and we, as Americans, CAN demand that our rights be honored, as their existence is not contingent on recognition by a Government that may or may not be just.

 

[Mr. D]

Chubacabra,

Amen. Thank God!

I can't presume to say what someone else would do when their rights are taken away, but I can predict one thing: a person in such a circumstance will find out VERY fast just how natural our rights are! The fact is, the founding fathers believed that our rights are natural and God-given. That is why they opposed England when the king tried to take them away. That is why the bill of rights was proposed (i.e. to acknowledge pre-existing rights, NOT to give them), and that is why some men of the time opposed the BoR - because they were afraid that codifying the rights would make it seem like they were given by the BoR.

~Dale

 

[elChupacabra!]

Mr. D -

And how right they were. Look at the mess we are in today, precisely because some people think we are only given rights by a government that choses to uphold them.

How far we have fallen.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The problem with that is that the ones who only emote always end up reverting back to "Well, I feel its wrong," or "I don't feel safe around guns," as their unbeatable trump card.

3KillerBs
I did have a friend break that trump card once with the reply "but I don't CARE about your feelings I care about the facts".

As you can imagine, it put quite a damper on that conversation.

Skipping tracks here...
"Natural Rights" sometimes gives me a pain in the neck. While I do sometimes feel that nations are sort of a collective illusion (got to find a better term for that) where we essentially all picked a starting point (or the founding fathers picked one), agreed that point would be our "anchor" and then moved on from there, I find it curious that the point was agreed upon at all. That concensus itself makes me think there is something "natural" about that starting point, that it's just "right".

With that in mind the dichotomy that I have to work out is my staunch position that, no matter what else others may say or think, I have a right to protect myself from any predator or aggressor (a "natural born" right as it were) while at the same time I also firmly believe that some personal sacrifice is both necessary and expected from anyone who wants the benefits of being a citizen of this "concentual hallucination" we call a nation.

Where "expected sacrifice" crosses the line into a full on attack on my "natural" liberty and security? That's one of the issues I wrestle with and have constant debates with others about. (and the frog in hot water analogy is apt. Is the attack creeping up so slowly that I'll never even notice that the water is boiling until it's too late?)

Nowhere is this struggle more visible than in the debate about RKBA which, again, is why I am constantly searching for elements to clarify and reinforce my position.

 

[RPCVYemen]

First, I think you mean "prove" rather than "disprove" in that last sentence... but it's empirically verifiable. No living thing, including yourself or myself, or a dog or worm or single-celled organism, when attacked, threatened, choked, punched, or stabbed refuses to seek to preserve its own existance.

Actually, I did mean disprove.

No living thing, including yourself or myself, or a dog or worm or single-celled organism, when attacked, threatened, choked, punched, or stabbed refuses to seek to preserve its own existance.

So no living being has ever accepted his or her death with equanimity? I have a feeling that there are awful lot of folks in the world (not me) would argue that one of the most important events in the history of the world was a living being who chose not to preserve existence.

But more seriously, what does your evidence prove?

You are describing conditions and giving them a magical "right" to be that way.

• Water has boils at 212 degrees, therefor water has the natural right to boil at 212 degrees.
• The HIV virus in human beings destroys T cells and kills human beings, therefor the HIV has the natural right in human beings to take over T cells and kill human beings.
• ...

I think this is called the "is ought" fallacy - the underlying premise is everything is the way that it ought to be. What evidence do we have to support the premise that everything (or anything) is as it ought to be?

Bentham and the other Utilitarians pointed this out in the 18th century - about the same time Hobbes was spouting forth.

While I am not an expert, it appears to me that the preamble to the Constitution is closer to a Utilitarian position argument than a "natural rights" argument.

Mike

 

[ZeSpectre]

While I am not an expert, it appears to me that the preamble to the Constitution is closer to a Utilitarian position argument than a "natural rights" argument.

Mike,
that's an interesting perspective, and one I'd have to consider for a while before I could respond. So in the meanwhile, can you come up with a strong "Utilitarian" argument to preserve our RKBA?

 

[elChupacabra!]

Bentham and the other Utilitarians pointed this out in the 18th century - about the same time Hobbes was spouting forth.

While I am not an expert, it appears to me that the preamble to the Constitution is closer to a Utilitarian position argument than a "natural rights" argument.

Ah, but we must frame the Preamble with our understanding of the men who wrote it and their beliefs expressed elsewhere - such as the Declaration of Independance. This falls under the logical fallacy of "false attribution" whereby a a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

You cannot write Utilitarianism into the Constitution, overriding the authors' beliefs about "natural rights" simply because it is more convenient to your personal chosen philosophy.