Why doesn't China take legislation to ban knives?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why doesn't China take legislation to ban knives?

«‹›12 »

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

Dead Reckoning posted:

So you think rights are something granted by the government...

God you're stupid.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Who What Now posted:

Do... Do you not understand the difference between rights and morals?

Who What Now posted:

Actually, there is. It's called the Constitution.

I can't tell if you're actually completely ignorant of the entire history of philosophy of government since the 1600's, or if you're just using some esoteric set of personal definitions and being so pedantic as to be inscrutable.

spoon0042 posted:

God you're stupid.

I really don't see how else I'm supposed to interpret this:

Who What Now posted:

You support restricting rights all the time. Rights are not something you intrinsically have, they are given to you by society and enforced by the state, and they can stop giving them to you at any time as well, such as when someone is incarcerated. And unless you're some sort of libertarian anarchist you support this. So your argument of "b-b-b-b-but you're taking away my rights" is just fallacious emotional scaremongering, and a tactic that was used by slave holders during the Civil War no less. The question isn't and has never been "Should this right be taken away" it's "should this right be given". So why should we give you the right to own a gun?

Like, maybe he doesn't understand the difference between natural rights and legal rights?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Oct 13, 2015

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:11

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

My question is what did the people who lived in America hundreds of years do when there wasn't guns around? Wasn't their inherent right to have guns severely limited by them not existing where they were?

At what point in the colonization of America was their right to have guns and presumably not be unlawfully seized and placed on reservations given/taken away, so to speak?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:16

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

Dead Reckoning posted:

I really don't see how else I'm supposed to interpret this:

Well gee in bold it says "enforced by the state" not "granted" so...

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:18

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Ddraig posted:

My question is what did the people who lived in America hundreds of years do when there wasn't guns around? Wasn't their inherent right to have guns severely limited by them not existing where they were?

At what point in the colonization of America was their right to have guns and presumably not be unlawfully seized and placed on reservations given/taken away, so to speak?

Heh, the Olmec didn't have guns therefor the US Constitution is invalid.

Take that Supreme Court!

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:19

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

Ddraig posted:

My question is what did the people who lived in America hundreds of years do when there wasn't guns around? Wasn't their inherent right to have guns severely limited by them not existing where they were?

At what point in the colonization of America was their right to have guns and presumably not be unlawfully seized and placed on reservations given/taken away, so to speak?

They didn't have guns but they did have Arms.
:eng101:

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:29

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Heh, the Olmec didn't have guns therefor the US Constitution is invalid.

Take that Supreme Court!

It does sort of poo poo on the idea of there being an inherent right to own guns, or that rights in the US constitution are inherent to begin with.

If they're inherent, then why are they amendments to begin with? Shouldn't they have been known to all, instantly, being that they're a part of the very core of human existence? Surely it wouldn't take 13 amendments to realize that people have an inherent right to not be enslaved.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

spoon0042 posted:

Well gee in bold it says "enforced by the state" not "granted" so...

And right before that, he says they're granted by society. At the end, he states that rights are what society and the state choose to grant. Natural rights aren't granted by anyone, and cannot be dismissed by anyone, irrespective of whether or not society approves of them or the state chooses to guarantee them. This idea has been kind of a big deal for the last few hundred years. What he said could be kinda correct if we were talking about legal rights, but legal rights are irrelevant since we're talking about what the law ought to be. Further, even if something doesn't necessarily rise to the level of being a fundamental natural right, it's generally considered wrong for the government to restrict it without just cause: the government can't ban me from owning blue hand towels tomorrow without articulating some sort of rational basis.

Ddraig posted:

It does sort of poo poo on the idea of there being an inherent right to own guns, or that rights in the US constitution are inherent to begin with.

Yeah, why didn't the slaves have guns?
Just because the government has sometimes trampled the rights of various groups in the past does not mean that they didn't have rights.

Ddraig posted:

If they're inherent, then why are they amendments to begin with? Shouldn't they have been known to all, instantly, being that they're a part of the very core of human existence? Surely it wouldn't take 13 amendments to realize that people have an inherent right to not be enslaved.

I see you also are unfamiliar with the federalist papers.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 13, 2015

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:43

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Rights don't exist outside of a societal context, because they constitute an agreement to refrain from acting. The right to life is not an idiotical declaration that you don't die unless something kills you, it's an agreement to refrain from killing each other. Thus, rights must come from society, because they don't exist outside of that context and it is the society which enforces them, rather than Indra's arrows.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 02:49

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Ddraig posted:

It does sort of poo poo on the idea of there being an inherent right to own guns, or that rights in the US constitution are inherent to begin with.

If they're inherent, then why are they amendments to begin with? Shouldn't they have been known to all, instantly, being that they're a part of the very core of human existence? Surely it wouldn't take 13 amendments to realize that people have an inherent right to not be enslaved.

This is the world's dumbest argument.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:22

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I think we need a Crisis of Infinite Gunthreads

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:23

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

At what point did the right to bear arms become an integral part to human existence? Did it exist when we were still grasping the fundamental basics of tools? Was there a transition point where we were not recognizably human enough to strictly have human rights apply to us, but just human enough to need them? Did homo erectus have the same right?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:28

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

SedanChair posted:

I think we need a Crisis of Infinite Gunthreads

Move this thread to BSS.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:32

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

How far back does this go? Was the universe shaped with such a goal in mind? When the vast quantities of matter were coagulating after the Big Bang did it happen with the understanding that it was facilitating the need for one monkey to hit another monkey over the head with a stone?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 04:06

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'm a strict creationist, so I believe Adam created arms and their necessity when he tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 04:18

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm a strict creationist, so I believe Adam created arms and their necessity when he tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Thankfully Adam showed an unprecedented level of restraint and didn't immediately exercise the castle doctrine for this interloper who entered his garden and hosed everything up.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 04:36

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Ddraig posted:

Thankfully Adam showed an unprecedented level of restraint and didn't immediately exercise the castle doctrine for this interloper who entered his garden and hosed everything up.

Sadly he didn't pass that restraint on to his sons.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 04:40

lynch_69: Jan 21, 2001

so how long until another mass shooting

# ? Oct 13, 2015 05:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

lynch_69 posted:

so how long until another mass shooting

Mass shooting as in >4 in the group shot at, mass shooting as in >4 wounded by gunfire incl. injuries released the same day, mass shooting as >4 dead incl. gunman, mass shooting as in >4 dead excl. gunman, mass shooting as in within the geographic boundaries of a school campus, or mass shooting as in CNN covers a press conference from a federal official live? More importantly, do you want Vegas odds, or social gambling numbers?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 06:46

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

"Heh, call that a mass shooting? They were only wounded. Wake me up when we get some kills racked up."

# ? Oct 13, 2015 06:49

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

It's almost as if "mass shooting" is stretched and distorted to mean whatever someone is arguing about wants it to mean.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:29

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

No, I'm happy with a hard-and fast rule of four people shot, not necessarily killed.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:30

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

lynch_69 posted:

so how long until another mass shooting

Starshark posted:

No, I'm happy with a hard-and fast rule of four people shot, not necessarily killed.

If you're going that cheap, over/under is probably gonna be 1-2 days according to Shootingtracker.com, but the bookie gets to round in his favor and pick whether or not the shooter counts. Probably have better money going by the FBI definition.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:01

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Effectronica posted:

Rights don't exist outside of a societal context, because they constitute an agreement to refrain from acting. The right to life is not an idiotical declaration that you don't die unless something kills you, it's an agreement to refrain from killing each other. Thus, rights must come from society, because they don't exist outside of that context and it is the society which enforces them, rather than Indra's arrows.

Well gently caress, it must surely be Ragnorok because Effectronica is on my side. I had you all wrong, Effy, you're pretty all right when you agree with me.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 09:43

erosion: Dec 21, 2002; It's true and I'm tired of pretending it isn't

Welp, I did a little research, and as it turns out, some of these dumbasses have a point. Here's the issue in a nutshell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution posted:

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[15]

(see also: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?src=me&_r=0)

From what I'm reading, there are still a lot of moving parts and unfinished cases. But the majority of the Supreme Court is leaning toward the interpretation that the operative clause, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is absolute, while the justification clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", does not limit or influence the operative clause at all.

The phrase "...shall not be infringed." is very broad and powerful. Infringe means any sort of limitation, such as waiting periods, background checks, or age limits. Come to think of it, you might even be entitled to a free gun from the government under this phrasing.

Not all federal laws have been updated yet; in fact, the NRA lists several current restrictions to firearm ownership and usage, such as the following excerpt:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law posted:

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

*Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
*Fugitives from justice.
*Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
*Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
*Illegal aliens.
*Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
*Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
*Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
*Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
*Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
*Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

It's unclear to me which of these classes of people the NRA would wish to allow to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, although I could make a few guesses. But taken literally, the operative clause would only prevent those who are not citizens of the US from obtaining guns. Indeed, according to this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, a 14 year old drug addict who has been convicted of murder, stalking, and domestic violence, and who has been ruled mentally incompetent and escaped prison, would still be eligible for firearm ownership as they are considered "the People".

With such a law as this, why wouldn't you want to own a gun?

# ? Oct 14, 2015 23:04