Poll: Most oppose assault weapon ban

[TPaine7]

(CBS News)

A new poll indicates that more and more people now have guns in their homes, and that America's attitude towards gun-control may be shifting.

According to a new Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans report having a gun on their property, up from 41 percent a year ago.

It's the highest number Gallup has recorded since 1993.

The poll also found that 53 percent of Americans oppose a ban on assault rifles and semiautomatic guns - the first time more have opposed than supported a ban.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-20126950/poll-most-oppose-assault-weapon-ban/?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel

The tide is turning. We in the pro rights community must encourage safety and responsibility so that those who oppose rights will not have excuses to seek infringement. We should also be ready to welcome into the fold reasonable people who are realizing that abiding by the Constitution will not lead to "blood in the streets" and "the Wild West" of Hollywood fantasy.

[ileus]

1. 47% not too bad.

[Hoopla Phil]

88. Not bad at all considering some (many?) like myself NEVER answer

such a poll in the affirmative.

[Ter]

2. Hahaha

Wow, I remember crying as a youngster when Congress banned them in that close vote in '94. Polls showed the public supported it by wide margins. I've been vindicated. Never again should be our slogan!

[Kurska]

3. Fuck yeah

That feeling is freedom.

[demosincebirth]

4. Live grenades will be next for protection

[spin]

6. Why is it that those who dislike firearms always talk about making grenades ...

and even nuclear bombs legal for civilian ownership while none that support firearm ownership ever suggest that?

[SteveM]

10. I don't know, but it probably has to do with mentioning "penis." nt

[Union Scribe]

90. Lol, I guess two grenades would be the accompanying insult

I can just see the posts now. "I don't need grenade balls I've got real ones!"

[wtmusic]

11. Because none "that" support firearm ownership ever admit they support gun control

"It's absolute!" "It's a question of degree!" "It's absolute..."

The only thing certain is inherent schizophrenia.

[LAGC]

94. Actually, most advocates are pretty clear about only being as well armed as the average infantryman.

Rifles and pistols and other small arms that can be carried on the person, heavy arms like bombers and nukes not so much.

[demosincebirth]

16. I would love to carry a live grenade around for protection...sound ridiculous?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Yes, it does sound ridiculous. N/T

[TPaine7]

24. Yes, it does sound ridiculous.

Just like nukes, grenades are useless as a defense against stickups, home invasions, rapes or the vast majority of attempted murders.

Think about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Corbomite Device!

Ordnance, like explosives, has never been construed as protected under the 2a, because it cannot be used against a particular target. It is indiscriminate.

[Hoopla Phil]

89. I would perry with the "Smoking Yamato" defense.

[slackmaster]

32. It sounds more disingenuous than ridiculous to me

Please tell us what you really think.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ObamaFTW2012]

57. Mine must be defective

because I've had them for many years and they've never killed anybody.

[rl6214]

78. Honestly?

Wait, what am I saying, I know you can't ever be honest.

[Union Scribe]

91. You're always accusing DUers of wanting to murder people

What's wrong with you that you think like that?

[Iktomiwicasa]

43. sure does

[Iktomiwicasa]

45. I'm waiting for someone...

...to bring up missiles or :nuke:

[SteveM]

8. Do you have any sources indicating this as the next goal, or are you...

...ripping wind in a church?

[demosincebirth]

17. Sure, the mentalily of gun owners. Ever hear of the

theory of Bigger and Better?

[SteveM]

19. "mentality of gun owners:" You expect Dems to win, labeling 90 million that way?

Esp. since some tens of millions of Dems own guns.

What is the "mentality" of liberal Democratic gun owners?

[demosincebirth]

49. I have yet to say this, but I do own a gun and there is no amount of gun control legislation that

will make me, not, vote for a democrat. So,what I think you are sayin' is that your vote for a democrat may depend on his stance, basically, on gun control? Yes or no?

[ileus]

20. I think most are happy with 45's you don't hear too many rushing out for S&W 500's

The 556 and 7.62 are also pretty well accepted as self defense calibers.

50 cal is as large as you can go before bumping up against NFA limits.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. No, I haven't heard of that. Why don't you elaborate.

[demosincebirth]

48. I haven' heard of it either...I just made it up.

[Union Scribe]

93. *wrong place*

[PavePusher]

27. Cite, or bullshit. n/t

[slackmaster]

31. I've never heard of that. Please explain yourself.

TIA

[demosincebirth]

51. I just made it up. But it sure has a ring of truth to it.

[TPaine7]

53. Ah, TRUTHINESS. Stephen Colbert must be so proud of you. n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

34. It's very strange then that many of the gun owners that I know are buying ...

smaller handguns such as the Ruger LCP.

[ileus]

74. Love my LCP....

[ObamaFTW2012]

58. Nice theory

but it's just a theory. The gun owners I know who actually carry on a regular basis don't choose carry guns based on that theory. They carry guns they can comfortably carry and shoot, and that they can afford. The $2500 high end 1911's are really nice, but I don't know anyone who carries one. Most people I've spoken with who carry put on compact 9mm's and .38 snubnose revolvers.

[ileus]

13. You may be able to with a 200.00 NFA tax stamp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device


that's per device so you couldn't have much fun with them...

[krispos42]

37. You can have them...

...but the tax is $200.

:shrug:


It would, however, scare the shit out of every single burglar in a 5-mile radius.


"Dude, did you hear about Wayne? He was doin' a B&E over on Lordship Ave and this mutherfucker threw a GRENADE at him!!"

"Shit! How's it turn out?"

"A metric assload of shrapnel and a dime in the state pen."

"Which block? I gotta know where NOT to go next week!"

[oneshooter]

56. personally I am looking at a suppressor for one of my AR's. n/t

[ObamaFTW2012]

59. Me too

I have a 10.25" SBR AR15 registered on a Form 1 that I did last year. When I can afford it, I'll buy a suppressor for it.

[oneshooter]

68. Gets a little loud don't it! The one I am outfitting is a 20" that I built several

Years ago. Hellish accurate with 68gr hansloads, but I want to use it on hogs. Got a buddy who is over run with them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ObamaFTW2012]

81. SBR's need suppressors

without question, they do.

I have 2 sequentially serial numbered receivers. One is my SBR, the other will be built as a 20" or 24" precision rifle.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Might put a dent in some of the furniture too.

[krispos42]

77. Ikea is not recommend for areas where hand grenades deployed.

I'm thinking more "government auction". Yanno, those pieces of 50-year-old pale green solid steel furniture? Yeah, those.

[safeinOhio]

5. Another recent poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/19/us-usa-shooting-survey-idUSTRE70I0QO20110119

(Reuters) - An overwhelming majority of U.S. gun owners, and Americans in general, support tougher measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and others barred by law from possessing weapons, according to a new survey issued on Tuesday.
Eighty-one percent of gun owners, and 86 percent of all Americans, back requiring personal background checks for all firearms sales, regardless of whether the weapon is bought from a licensed dealer or from a private seller at a gun show, the poll said.


Seems Americans also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Even a vast majority of U.S. gun owners want background checks on private sales.

[spin]

9. I am one of those gun owners who support background checks on all sales ...

of firearms.

Currently I will NOT sell any of my firearms to an individual who I do not personally know and that individual has to have a valid concealed weapons permit.

[SteveM]

12. A 'universal" bacground (NICS) test has been seriously discussed...

here, and it has considerable support. I have no problem with opening up the discussion again.

[TPaine7]

15. Sure. I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit. So does the NRA.

The vast majority of Americans believe that the sun is hot as well, though admittedly I can't cite any polls.

That's about equally newsworthy.

Where I disagree with that January poll (opinions are fluid) is on background checks for private sales. I believe in background checks for people, with cards being available to show that the person you are selling to or buying from is not a prohibited person. That would be a one-time charge, not an effective tax on every gun sale.

[msongs]

21. 2A allows nut, criminals, wackos, and kids to own and carry guns. whose side are you on lol nt

[TPaine7]

22. You're moderately funny, msongs. With emphasis on "moderately." n/t

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

55. So then which one are you, and what do you carry? n/t

[ObamaFTW2012]

60. Well, the First Amendment allows

nuts, criminals, wackos, and kids to belong to any crazy cult they want, and to deliver their crazy religious/anti-government "END OF THE WORLD!" speeches in public. Should we gut that too?

[iverglas]

63. I must have missed that end of the world stuff

Did those speeches actually bring it on???

:rofl:

[ObamaFTW2012]

65. Those people are weird

I have no doubt some of them believe they can make things happen just by "thinking it". I wish I could do that. I'd be eating a lot more steak and a lot less Hamburger Helper.

[iverglas]

67. yes, and their speeches

have never killed anyone.

A line could reasonably be drawn, with things like incitement to genocide falling on the wrong side.

But your attempt to analogize religious wackos and their speech with firearms carriers and their guns is a fail, I feear.

[ObamaFTW2012]

80. 4,000,000 jews

were murdered by their government, with little more than nutty speeches by a methed-up paranoid wacko and a false flag arson to get the whole genocidal thing started. Words are every bit as dangerous as guns.

Feel free to retract your "fail", as you made a clear error in judgment.

[iverglas]

83. good god, my post was what, two lines long

and yet you managed to ignore about half of it?

Quite a trick, but still not successful.

Incitement to genocide clearly falls outside the line and may legitimately be prohibited.

But your mishmash

4,000,000 jews
Posted by ObamaFTW2012
were murdered by their government, with little more than nutty speeches by a methed-up paranoid wacko and a false flag arson to get the whole genocidal thing started. Words are every bit as dangerous as guns.

is just trash.

I'm no free-speech zealot, but I don't claim that words kill people. I'm just a tad more sophisticated than that. You might not want to pretend to believe you're speaking to morons here. Just a helpful hint.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ObamaFTW2012]

102. I admit

I missed this part:

"Incitement to genocide clearly falls outside the line and may legitimately be prohibited."

Pretty much makes the rest of my post pointless. My apologies.

[rrneck]

29. I'd be for it

with guaranteed anonymity.

[wtmusic]

7. Ha - will not lead to "blood in the streets".

In case you haven't noticed, it already has.

And the United States moved up ten places in the list of violent crimes by country 2000-2010.

No fantasy. Reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[spin]

33. It's interesting that the latest data from FBI paints a far different picture ...

Murder

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

***snip***

Overview

An estimated 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010. This was a 4.2 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate, a 14.8 percent decrease from the 2006 figure, and an 8.0 percent decrease from the 2001 estimate.
In 2010, there were 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2009 rate. Compared with the 2006 rate, the murder rate decreased 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2001 rate, the murder rate decreased 15.0 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)...emphasis added
Nearly 44 percent (43.8) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, with 20.6 percent reported in the West, 19.9 percent reported in the Midwest, and 15.6 percent reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain

Violent Crime

***snip***

Overview

In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2010 estimated violent crime total was 13.2 percent below the 2006 level and 13.4 percent below the 2001 level.
There were an estimated 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010.
Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 62.5 percent. Robbery comprised 29.5 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.8 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2010.
Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

If you visit this wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_to_1999

You will discover that:

In 1908 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8

In 1931 it was 9.2

In 1961 it was 4.8

In 1980 it was 10.2

In 1994 it was 9.0

According to your web page it was 4.8 in 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That data agrees with the FBI data posted above.

So the homicide rate was the same in 2010 as it was in 1908 and in 1961! There's no indication that more blood is flowing in the streets in fact just the opposite.

In fact the data from your link shows that in 2000 the homicide rate in the United States was 5.5. We are lowering our homicide rate, not increasing it. This is despite the fact that gun sales have skyrocketed in the last few years and "shall issue" concealed carry has swept across the nation.

[gejohnston]

75. look up the gun laws of those

places that is worse than ours. All much stricter than even most of Europe.
Ummm, did you read that correctly? The numbers are not places in line, it is the number of murders per 100K. Our murder rate for 2010 was 4.8 per 100K. The rate is dropping.

[kenfrequed]

14. I don't care

Seriously. Lets stop talking about guns. It's a waste of fricking time. WE need to just say that gun control as a means to reduce crime has not been as successful and that to really address crime we need to try to resolve the socio-economic roots that increase criminality.

Lets actually take a stand against firearm legislation and everytime it comes up start talking about poverty, the lack of healtcare, the loss of education spending, and the destruction of infrastructure.

The libertarian lunatics can have their goddamned guns. If there are fewer criminals and less people wanting then no one will want to join their armed militias anyhow. Make the libertarians argue about economics and we will win every goddamned time.

[Simo 1939_1940]

42. Huh?

The libertarian lunatics can have their goddamned guns.

So if you're a firearm owner, you're either a "libertarian lunatic" or a "RW lunatic"?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[kenfrequed]

50. Uhm..

No, obviously not.

Thank you though for taking one line out of context without really giving consideration to what my point. Congrats.

I could list off all the flaws in your reasoning in this regard but suffice to say it should be clear from reading (tough skill I know) my post that I am against excessive gun control. It is a pragmatic position I suggest. Why bother giving an enemy an argument they can use?

I suppose I should ask whether you actually ARE a libertarian? Is the association of 'libertarian' and 'nut job' what is really driving your decontextualized loaded question?

Also, nice use of a false choice logical fallacy in the end. Kudos again.

[Simo 1939_1940]

96. "..........what is driving your decontextualized

loaded question?"

Probably fatigue and the meds I'm on for an injury.

Sorry for the lack of attention to your entire post - my bad, and my apologies. (btw - no, I'm not a libertarian. I define myself as liberal.)

[kenfrequed]

101. No harm

Sorry if my response was so acidic.

[demosincebirth]

52. I agree. But some, when you mention guns can't stand stand someone

not sharing their insatiable desire to own more.

[ileus]

18. Most have no idea what the AWB was...

[Simo 1939_1940]

39. Precisely.

I believe that if you polled a group of individuals who defined themselves as liberal or progressive (as I do) the majority would state that they supported the reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban. (Of course, given the general lack of education this groups has w/regard to the firearm restriction issue, you may have to explain that the ban expired in '04) If you then asked them to describe the characteristics that define the "AW", the majority would either respond with dead silence, or the incorrect answer. ("machine gun" for example)

So a majority of liberals would fervently support a proposal which they know nothing about.

This theory, while not scientific, is based on conversations with friends - the great majority of which are liberals.

[rrneck]

44. Responses in this forum

correlate with your findings.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Simo 1939_1940]

46. Thank you, rrneck.

I have been mightily impressed by your thoughts/writings for some time.

[slackmaster]

30. It's amazing what a little education does for peoples' political attitudes

Opinions based on real facts rather than propaganda usually turn out to be more rational.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Emphasis on "little". Imagine what a lot of education might have accomplished.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

35. you can never lose when betting on the stupidity of the American people....nt

[TPaine7]

40. One great thing about America is that it has no iron curtain

If you feel that the people around you are stupid, you can always leave.

...Unless, of course, you're incarcerated or something.

[iverglas]

64. wowsers

You really have no clue about your cultural heritage, do you?

H L Mencken, P T Barnum ... my money's on Mencken.


http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2011/04/5-things-you-wont-go-broke.html

Although this saying is often credited to Mencken, it’s actually a paraphrase of something he wrote in his column in the September 19, 1926 edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune. He was discussing the recent upsurge in tabloid newspapers geared toward uneducated readers, including “near-illiterates.” Mencken predicted (correctly) that “journalism of the future…will move in the direction” of the tabloids and noted drily:

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

Any time you need help understanding something else to do with the USofA, just shout.

[TPaine7]

69. Condescending up again, I see

Yes, I am aware of the quotation. However, I wouldn't consult Your Sophistry regarding the color of the sky, never mind anything having to do with the US--given your record of attempting to teach us the loads of bullshit, misinformation and other assorted crap you traffic in.

Yawn...

[iverglas]

71. yeah, you were aware of the quotation

I believe it.

Now tell me the sky is orange, just to test my belief.

[Union Scribe]

95. Lines like that are invariably muttered by egomaniacs.

And certainly no liberal I've ever known.

[iverglas]

98. you didn't read on at all, did you?

The utterer of the original line also said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#Democracy

Mencken wrote as follows about the difficulties of good men reaching national office when such campaigns must necessarily be conducted remotely:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

He predicted George W. Bush 80 years before he happened, thus pretty much proving his point. You might want to heed his words!

:rofl:

He was Ayn Rand's favourite writer ...

[dtexdem]

38. That is truly sad.

And the vultures on DU are circling while cackling about it.

[-..__...]

41. More like circling the reamins of the gun control lobby...

and picking away at what little meat is still left on the bones.

[Simo 1939_1940]

47. I find it a source of great amusement that the pro-RKBA

Dems and the pro-restriction Dems are both serving the interests of the Democratic Party - albeit in different ways.

In the case of the former - by confronting the chronic dishonesty of the restrictionists arguments, they assist in the elimination of a wedge issue that causes us much political damage.

In the case of the latter - in proudly parading their emotion-based arguments before a large audience, and getting those arguments routinely demolished, they assist in the destruction of their own "cause" - ultimately assisting in the elimination of previously referenced wedge issue.

[iverglas]

61. how many oppose same-sex marriage?

How many advocate criminalizing the exercise of reproductive rights?

How many believe Obama was born wherever it is he's supposed to have been born?

How many think the schools should teach creationism?

You know what this is.

C'mon, you can do it.

It's a fallacy.

It's called .......


ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM!


Oh. Unless you weren't actually saying that the fact that a big X number of people support something means it is a good thing.

I guess maybe you weren't.

So I guess you were just saying ... a bunch of people support outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion, and support making the schools teach cretionism, and oppose banning assault weapons ... ho hum, nothing to see here ... except hm, maybe the rather large overlap among those various sets that everybody knows exists ...

Oh, well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's Democrat-voting, progressive-thinking folks who oppose the assault weapons ban.

Snork.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. Just my views:

"...criminalizing the exercise of reproductive rights?" - no opinion

"...Obama was born wherever it is he's supposed to have been born?" - Obama is the President, I trusted the folks in charge to make sure at the time. If there should be proof in the future to the contrary, other than waiting 4 years, there is no mechanism to undo an election.

"...think the schools should teach creationism?" - I am a Christian. I do not/did not trust non-Christians to teach my children any of my religious beliefs.

"...how many oppose same-sex marriage?" - I believe government has no business qualifying who one may marry. I further believe government has no need to record sex, name or for that matter how many marital partners one may have.

At one time many people thought it was okay to own others that they defined as "not people". That wasn't okay either.

[iverglas]

72. mm hmm

?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. Ah...

...yup!

[TPaine7]

73. It's called NEWS, Your Sophistry...

It's called .......


ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM!


Oh. Unless you weren't actually saying that the fact that a big X number of people support something means it is a good thing.

I guess maybe you weren't.

Wow! That's right.

Did you figure that out all by yourself??! That would be impressive for someone of your... ahem, abilities. Usually, I have to break things like that down for you to the level where..., well..., YOU can understand them. But this time it's unnecessary.

Congratulations, iverglas!!!

So I guess you were just saying ... a bunch of people support outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion, and support making the schools teach cretionism, and oppose banning assault weapons ... ho hum, nothing to see here ... except hm, maybe the rather large overlap among those various sets that everybody knows exists ...

Awwwww. And you were doing so well!

No, iverglas, I wasn't talking about "a bunch of people {who} support outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion." I wasn't talking about people who "support making the schools teach cretionism." (And what is cretionism anyway, a philosophy or a religion? You know teaching religion in school is forbidden, right?) I wasn't talking about overlaps between groups.

When I want to talk about those subjects, I will. In the meantime, you feel free to start your own threads on those subjects, Your Sophistry.

The facts of public opinion on a subject are significant in and of themselves. Supporting gun rights is good because it has always been good. Public opinion hasn't made it better.

(You see, they're rights and rights are not societal constructs. It's strange to see a proponent of rights as a social construct--the creation of the "collectivity"--arguing that when society favors the idea that something is a right they aren't automatically correct--it being their construct, after all. Then again, I would never accuse Your Sophistry of lacking hypocrisy.)

And next time ask the helpful adult to proofread your entire post. Then maybe the whole thing will look impressive... for you at least.

[iverglas]

76. oooooh, it's the typo police!

Should I fear that my keyboard will be confiscated???

:rofl:

Meanwhile, maybe you can show the class where in your little opening blurb, or the poll it was about, it said anything at all about "rights":

It's strange to see a proponent of rights as a social construct--the creation of the "collectivity"--arguing that when society favors the idea that something is a right they aren't automatically correct--it being their construct, after all.

I'll bet a majority of the USAmericans who advocate violating women's reproductive rights would agree with a statement in a poll saying that fetuses have rights.

Hm, what is that telling us .............

Oh, I remember. H L Mencken said it, didn't he?


Maybe somebody will explain to you how the fact that a concept is a social construct doesn't mean that anyone's attempt to stuff anything within the four walls of that construct actually means anything.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

99. oh sigh

You see, when something is a "construct", it actually has dimensions and content.

The content and dimensions of the "rights" construct preclude things like "animal rights" (another bit of nonsense you've spouted quite recently). Also "fetal rights".

As I said, the fact that a concept is a social construct doesn't mean that anyone's attempt to stuff anything within the four walls of that construct actually means anything.

And yes, grasshopper, "anyone" does include this "society" of yours -- this "society" of yours, even if we assume your hypothetical as to what it is getting up to, being just a little speck on the landscape and timeline of humanity.

If some society decides to go stuffing animal rights and fetal rights and, er, "gun rights" into the construct, it creates bulges that burst the seams. The construct no longer exists. And good luck building a new one that holds all that stuff without the internal wars breaking it apart immediately.

If animals have a right to life, we may not eat them. I mean, we may not eat people, right? We may not eat people even if we are really really hungry, unless they're already dead, like, through no act of our own. If fetuses have a right to life, we may not abort them. We may not abort them even if our own life depends on it. Just as we may not kill our shipwreck companion to make sure there are enough coconuts on the island that we survive ourselves.

And if there is a right to guns, well then there is a right to pizza, and really a right to any other damned thing anybody takes a shine to. And the construct "rights" just doesn't hold guns and pizza and shoelaces and tin foil and iPods without collapsing under its own dead weight. It's a nonsense.

The "human rights" construct, which is what we're talking about here, doesn't hold the right to vote, either, for instance. That's a right that derives from membership in a particular society: a civil right. My constitution gives me the right to vote in Canada, but it doesn't give you that right because you aren't a member of this society. But my constitution recognizes your "right to life, liberty and security of the person" because that is a human right, which, by the consensus of humanity, is inherent in you by virtue of your status as human being.

You can get a little taste of the problem by considering the constitutional amendment that has been mooted in your society that would prohibit same-sex marriage. You would have a constitution that, as interpreted, guaranteed the right to privacy and substantive due process, for instance, and then denied certain classes the exercise of those rights and benefit of those protections. Your constitution would be a shambles.

Kinda like your posts.

[aikoaiko]

79. nice to see the pendulum of opinion still swinging toward civil liberty.

The anti-gun militants are pouting and mumbling about guns are evil.

[iverglas]

84. nice to see the demagoguery of the gun zealots never falters

One would hate to think what would happen to them if they abandoned it. Go up in a poof of gunsmoke maybe?

[aikoaiko]

85. Well, you can't have all the fun.

[GeorgeGist]

100. A sad testament to the American Dream.