FBI: Hammers, Clubs, Fists and Hands Kill More Than Rifles
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
You are continuing to ignore the key flaw in your argument and you do yourself no credit. Try focussing on the authors and their attributes - and NOT the audience.
Until you meaningfully engage with your key flaw my characterization (in my words) of your argument stands.
My argument: Consistently applying principle to a changing environment would lead one to the conclusion that the second amendment protects the right to own and carry firearms that were not around in 1791. It's no different than how you apply biblical principles to classify certain behaviors as sinful even though they could not have been imagined by its original audience.
Your characterization of my argument: The Bible and the constitution are on equal footing and should be considered as equally binding on the souls of men.
You claimed to apply the same logic (although actually you failed in that) to both the Bible and the Constitution. Your thinking is invalid and illogical because you failed to account for and recognise the different authors and natures of the documents in your reasoning - I am happy to keep posting this as many times as you need me to.
By the way it is quite pathetic that you bluntly repeated a request for me to respond to a question, and then when I had space in a response to directly address your question you then dismissed *your very own topic* as a rabbit trail.
Nonsense. I am going to the root of your error. You have a problem with logic.
You repeatedly confuse -the two different authors of the Bible and the Constitution and -the different natures of the two documents and their contents.
Kyle wrote: However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the US Constitution does protect internet porn as free expression, even though the Biblical principle, as you say, makes it sinful.
and is God the author of sin? No! Well, then let's be careful not to conflate 1. The Bible, which is God given, PERFECT, cannot err, and is our sufficient rule for faith and practice, and, 2. A document written by fallible man, who cannot see the end from the beginning and would be horrified to see their words being used to peddle pornographic SINFUL materials.
Kyle wrote: and by the same logic
No! you are conflating perfect the Word of God with the fallible words of men.
Temperance wrote: Please be specific with regard to the US Constitution's free speech protection of internet porn.
I never stated that the Constitution protects internet porn. I used internet as an example of how a principle (in this case prohibition of lust) regulates something that it doesn't necessarily foresee.
However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the US Constitution does protect internet porn as free expression, even though the Biblical principle, as you say, makes it sinful. It's the freedom of the press, even if the "press" has become somewhat of an outdated reference to an actual press.
Temperance wrote: The Bible forbids all forms of sexual immorality and lust.
Well stated. I agree, and by the same logic the Constution prohibits all forms of restrictions on the right to keep and bear (that means "carry") arms.
Why are my extensions illogical and anachronistic?
Temperance wrote: If the constitution did not create the rights and principles it protects, where did it find them?
The right to posess weapons and use them in defense of self, just like the Law of Conservation of Momentum, was created by God in the beginning. We just do our best to describe them. The right protected by the second amendment wasn't waiting around for someone to describe it in order to exist any more than general relativity was waiting for Einstein before it was true. Government and law do not create rights. They exist to protect pre-existing rights.
The ability to carry a firearm either openly or surreptitiously is protected by the second amendment, even if that type of firearm was not available in 1791. The validity of that statement and the principle that the second amendment describes rise or fall together.
Speaking of straw men, I asked you about whether or not the Bible prohibits internet porn, since Jesus's listeners would have understood it relative to adultery with a live woman, and whether the first amendment protects any speech in the internet. You conflated them.
You said "I reject your illogical and anachronistic practical extensions." Again, why are my extensions illogical and anachronistic?
Kyle wrote: The constitution did not create the rights it protects. It merely affirms them.
Kyle wrote: It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet. The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law.
Principles: The Bible forbids all forms of sexual immorality and lust. The US Constitution protects internet porn.
If the constitution did not create the rights and principles it protects, where did it find them?
Kyle wrote: No, i don't concede anything of the sort. I denied that it was anachronistic, and you accused me of a straw man so I dropped the argument.
No, you did not deny that your practical extension was anachronistic. You cut and paste anachronistic out of context and applied it to a general principle, arguing against something I had not stated. A clear case of strawman argumentation. I was not aware that you had dropped the argument. You simply failed to respond when an apology and request for forgiveness would have more appropriate in the light of the 9th commandment.
No, i don't concede anything of the sort. I denied that it was anachronistic, and you accused me of a straw man so I dropped the argument.
The possessing of any type of weapon is adiaphorous- morally neutral. Until i use it to harm someone else, it remains an internal affair. That's the practical boundary. If you think otherwise, then let's arrest everyone who leaves a bar drunk, because they might drive drunk and kill someone. Better yet, let's arrest anyone who goes into a bar, because they might get drink and then drive drunk. Why not? Gun control is basically a thought crime.
Really? You really think i have a right to carry a musket?
Can i carry a musket on a commercial aircraft without going to jail for ten years? Can i carry a musket within a thousand feet of a school without going to jail for five years? Can i carry a musket at all without bribing the police (except in AZ, WY, VT, and Alaska)? If i live in Chicago, can i carry a musket from my kitchen to my garage without going to jail? I might believe your statement if you advocated for gun control laws to pivot on the type of gun carried.
It's a non-sequitor to say that one agrees with the right to bear arms. It's like saying that one agrees that acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s2. It's a self existing reality that we try our best to describe with written laws. The long term survival of a society rises or falls on how well it's codified laws match natural law.
Principles cannot be anachronistic. They are eternal. On what basis is this extension illogical?
Yes, I agree in principle with your right to carry a musket. I reject your illogical and anachronistic practical extensions.
Kyle wrote: It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet. The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law. Laws requiring fee men and women to disarm or be thrown in jail violate the principle that the second amendment affirms. And yes, it existed long before 1791.
It affirmed the principle, the same way the first amendment protects free speech on the internet.
The Bible didn't predict surgical abortion or internet porn. Does that mean it doesn't address them? It's about principle, nor necessarily it's expression in codified law.
Laws requiring fee men and women to disarm or be thrown in jail violate the principle that the second amendment affirms. And yes, it existed long before 1791.
It's hard to change. The fascist finds much more utility in ignoring it or explaining it away using strained logic. Gun control is to the constitution as Biologos is to Genesis.
Also, repealing the second amendment does not take away anyone's right to keep and bear arms. That's a common misconception. The constitution did not create the rights it protects. It merely affirms them.
11
There are a total of 30 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
beaver: "
mike
maybe you'd like to pick a more suitable adjective.
my, my,..."
