How do we get SS without actually asking for it.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    The problem is that the court isn't the only entity that will laugh you out of the room. The public will do the same, and for the very same reasons.

    Whatever argument you make, it's going to have to be one that is consistent with the general sensibilities of the target audience or, at a minimum, challenges those sensibilities very gently and in such a way as to provide an even more persuasive alternative. The "guns are not dangerous" argument is neither gentle nor provides a more persuasive alternative.

    But it is my belief that the "not unacceptably dangerous" argument is one that can win. See my prior message.

    I have made the argument, very successfully.. in fact, for several thousand years, philosophers have engaged in a tactic know as strong from weak form in which the strongest possible claim is made an defended to its fullest, and since each point in favor of the strong claim is also a point in favor of the weak claim you lose nothing by making the stronger claim.

    It is a very economical and effective technique in which the opposition often concedes major points as true on the theory that, while they are necessary to the strong argument, they are not sufficient , and thus no ego is at risk if they yield since they can still win. Properly executed I can move someone quite a bit in my direction before I let them ' win' by conceding the strong argument thus forcing them to accept the weaker.

    It been working for several thousand years so there just might be something to it .

    Meanwhile by your own admission we are losing and you expect to lose could it be that op force has already used this tirck on us and most have failed to notice.

    Is it an accident that after 30 years of "guns don'y kill people do ", and guns save more lives than they take" we have 43 shall issue states and a few going constitutional carry?


    Pure chance right?


    Stop arguing for a CA audience they will guarantee a loss. I will discuss why in another response.

    You may also consider that the court is one place that " Strong form" / Weak Form" will not lose you any points at all .

    I doubt they would bat an eyelash at an advocate that asserted " I am not willing to concede the burden of proof, nor will I shoulder it, but even should the court hold that the opposition has meet the burden of showing that guns pose some danger , they have not meet the higher burden of shoeing that that danger is not acceptable , as it is not materially different than other presumably dangerous objects. ( this is there version of strong from weak form -- they show weak form as ask the court for a pass on strong form -- but we cannot impeach the argument they never made -- yet another reason never to concede anything.

    You will see why it is imperative not to concede the burden when I reply to another of your statements .
     
    Last edited:

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    They have the burden of proof that arms are unacceptably dangerous. That is a much more difficult thing to prove than merely that arms are dangerous. The latter is trivial. The former is very difficult indeed.


    This one statement is very troubling indeed. I hardly know where to begin.

    1. They have no such burden unless the court hold them to it. To so so they must apply more than rational basis, or your claim that 'that is a much more difficult thing to do ' is just false. In that event 'dangerous' = 'unacceptably dangerous' , which is why you must pray for IS or SS. However the opposition will argue that SS or IS is not the correct standard of review because , and you have conceded, guns are dangerous, and thus materially different than speech and the court should not be second guessing the legislature on matters of public policy wrt public safety.

    All they need do is convince a skidish court half of which hate the 2a outright and half of which are law and order types, loath to second guess the legislature to being with to not apply IS or SS . not a high bar at all.

    By conceding the issue of dangerous you have conceded the standard of review-- game over.




    You can not paint yourself into a corner and then blame the paint.


    I must step out now-- but there is more in this statement to take on.

    What you claim as difficult s in fact trivial once you concede the standard of review the bulk of matter, while what you say is trivial is anything but.

    In sum you must at least attempt to impeach the claim that guns are dangerous to have any hope of getting standard of review which will allow you to impeach the notion that they are not " unacceptably dangerous" .

    You must make all the same points anyway so you lose nothing in making the claim -- and it just might keep you alive long enough to justify a higher standard of review. The court will not do it for you.


    Next I will edit to add my claim that " guns are dangerous is most definitely not trivially true, even if it is in the end true . It is very easy to poke holes in a strong claim like that as all that is needed for the court to consider a higher standard of review is doubt that the government's claims are unimpeachable .

    Now if guns are dangerous is trivially true -- how do we account for all the evidence suggesting that guns in the hands of the honest citizen is a net plus to public safety.. even if we discount the positive impact it certainly raises a question or two -- Op force instituted that all hell would break loose -- this to was trivially proven and accepted by many -- hell many still accept it ans use it as 'proof' that we are all frauds. And again something that is trivial to prove should require as much academic fraud as we have already caught them at. But no matter. A claim that something which seems to enhance public safety in the aggregate nevertheless inherently dangerous would I think be many things , but not trivially true-- I claim an offer of proof is required. I further claim no such proof is possible and am prepared to punch holes in such proof for fun and profit. The profit being at least a hope in hell that the court will take seriously is obligation to get an offer of proof before pronouncing the states assertions gospel.


    We need not convince the court that the government is wrong, only that its claims must be considered impeachable -- that alone gets us past RB. Then we have a chance.


    The argument we must make is this " The Governments claim that RB is sufficient itself fails RB -- or at the court might say "under any standard of review " because it requires us to concede what they must in fact prove.


    Since the opposition will not make any case for us to attack if we concede-- we can not concede.

    What you appear to propose is to hope the court gives you SS so you can win. You must fight to win even if you are going to get RB. That's why you must not concede the 'guns are dangerous ' argument-- even if you lose that argument you can win the war by getting the court into IS or better. By rejecting the first argument ( the claim that guns are dangerous) but considering the second you are half way home.

    But if you concede the first the court can just stop claim the second is out of scope because they have not set the standard of review . This is strong form weak form .. the court gets to reject an extreme position, and accept a more moderate one, all while giving us what we need, even if its not what we want.

    Op force claims a victory and so do we. -- meanwhile we are moving to SS.

    Never concede anything .. especially burden of proof. The court will not want to seem extreme -- give them a way to look moderate ... make them want to us IS or better because, everybody gets to win something.

    This trick works with moderates because it forces them to think and they get to 'win' .
     
    Last edited:

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    This one statement is very troubling indeed. I hardly know where to begin.

    1. They have no such burden unless the court hold them to it.

    Nobody has any burden of proof except that imposed by whichever entity one is attempting to convince, be it the public or the courts.

    But as regards the courts, the burden of proof arises from the fact that self-defense is a right, and thus so is possession of arms in such a way as to make them available for immediate self-defense use.


    All they need do is convince a skidish court half of which hate the 2a outright and half of which are law and order types, loath to second guess the legislature to being with to not apply IS or SS . not a high bar at all.

    By conceding the issue of dangerous you have conceded the standard of review-- game over.
    Okay, let's say you don't "concede" the issue of "dangerous".

    What would that look like?

    How are you going to answer their question of why you won't let your little kids play with guns?

    I guarantee the opposition will ask that question in front of the court and in front of the public, and both entities will expect you to answer it convincingly. You thus have to have a convincing answer to it, one that shows that the gun isn't dangerous after all. What's your answer?


    I don't have one. I don't have one because the answer you seek directly conflicts with the usage of the term "dangerous" that everyone else uses.

    If you insist upon changing the definition of a term, you have to convince the person who is using it that your definition is superior. How are you going to do that? What makes your definition convincingly superior?


    We need not convince the court that the government is wrong, only that its claims must be considered impeachable -- that alone gets us past RB. Then we have a chance.
    Wrong. To prevail, we have to convince the court that the government is wrong. If we fail to do that, the court will side with the government by default, because that is exactly what it means for laws to be "presumptively Constitutional".
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Nobody has any burden of proof except that imposed by whichever entity one is attempting to convince, be it the public or the courts.

    But as regards the courts, the burden of proof arises from the fact that self-defense is a right, and thus so is possession of arms in such a way as to make them available for immediate self-defense use.



    Okay, let's say you don't "concede" the issue of "dangerous".

    What would that look like?

    How are you going to answer their question of why you won't let your little kids play with guns?

    I guarantee the opposition will ask that question in front of the court and in front of the public, and both entities will expect you to answer it convincingly. You thus have to have a convincing answer to it, one that shows that the gun isn't dangerous after all. What's your answer?


    I don't have one. I don't have one because the answer you seek directly conflicts with the usage of the term "dangerous" that everyone else uses.

    If you insist upon changing the definition of a term, you have to convince the person who is using it that your definition is superior. How are you going to do that? What makes your definition convincingly superior?


    Wrong. To prevail, we have to convince the court that the government is wrong. If we fail to do that, the court will side with the government by default, because that is exactly what it means for laws to be "presumptively Constitutional".


    I did not have a chance to show how self-defense as a right is very impeachable to the collectivists -- suffice to say they have no issue denying the right and if you concede the burden of proof I guarantee the court will as well. It is our job to make the case, and that means not conceding anything. You may need to prove that self defense is a right -- but that's how far we have let things go -- more on that in another thread perhaps



    I don't let my kids watch TV 13 either. Lets ban it. No wait... lets assume that the danger is not in the thing but in the person-- then we could --oh my god regulate behavior.. hell I am almost positive there is this thing called the criminal code that does exactly that, and, amazingly, we are not contesting it.

    I have this crazy idea that if the entire criminal code can't manage to restraint bad actors, its still not a good idea nor consistent with limited powers doctrine to restrict the conduct of everyone else. Guns are not materially different than speech .


    If you allow Orwell to take over you should lose. Is CO2 a pollutant ? It is now. Do cars kill people ? They will as soon as they want to ban them. So to with guns -- objects do not have a moral center. They are not agents. They are not the correct focus of our safety concerns in any way shape or form -- and even in CA most people know this are afraid to speak plain truth -- well actually I can only speak for NYC -- perhaps in CA they do think guns are moral agents -- hard to tell.

    Language is everything. It is fascinating to me that you think we will lose, bit will not alter your strategy at all. Make the case or do not. I intend to make the case.


    I am not up to prevailing, I am still trying not to lose the standard of review you admit we need to win.

    Allow to stand unchallenged the claim that guns are dangerous and you will never get the chance to make the case under SS. If nothing else recognize that the public is never going to make fine distinctions of dangerous -- we live in a world where table salt has a material safety data sheet for god sakes .. The court will never get to far ahead of the public.

    I intend to fight the insanity not be co opted by it.

    Let them say what they will.. they will mark me as nuts anyway ..

    Here's a first we both agree that we will lose on present trends -- I intend to change the trends. You may be surprised how many respond when you call out the opposition-- folks are smarter than the opposition thinks.

    Question is will we use that to our advantage...
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    I did not have a chance to show how self-defense as a right is very impeachable to the collectivists -- suffice to say they have no issue denying the right and if you concede the burden of proof I guarantee the court will as well. It is our job to make the case, and that means not conceding anything. You may need to prove that self defense is a right -- but that's how far we have let things go -- more on that in another thread perhaps

    I don't need to prove that self-defense is a right. The Supreme Court has already said it is, in Heller.

    Look, if your goal is to convince a court that you should prevail over the government when the court isn't even going to adhere to Heller, then you are finished. There is absolutely no argument you can possibly make that will make any difference whatsoever. Period. Because that court has already made up its mind on the issue.

    Hence, I thought we were talking about a court, or a public, which has not already made up its mind.


    So which is it? Are we talking about convincing the opposition, something you have repeatedly said you weren't talking about, and which the courts you seem to refer to here are part of, or are we talking about convincing the fencesitters?

    I say it's the latter, and I say that it is in part because the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to self defense that we can base our arguments on it.



    I don't let my kids watch TV 13 either. Lets ban it.
    Don't get cute. Your reasons for not letting your little kids watch TV 13 are very different from your reasons for not letting them play with guns. The opposition knows this, and is going to call you out on it.

    You're avoiding the question by playing games as in the above. That isn't going to work.


    No wait... lets assume that the danger is not in the thing but in the person-- then we could --oh my god regulate behavior.. hell I am almost positive there is this thing called the criminal code that does exactly that, and, amazingly, we are not contesting it.
    You seem to think that I'm insisting that we avoid the argument of people being the source of danger. I am not. I agree that it is one of the arguments we should be making.

    But if you insist on ignoring the "dangerousness" attributes of items, then the opposition is going to ask whether you're going to insist that we not forbid nuclear weaponry, seeing how it's not the object that is dangerous, but only those who possess it who have intent to harm. Right?


    Language is everything. It is fascinating to me that you think we will lose, bit will not alter your strategy at all. Make the case or do not. I intend to make the case.
    Language is everything. And if you can somehow convince the fencesitters to use your language despite the fact that the opposition's language is the one the fencesitters have already adopted, then that will be miraculous.

    I don't believe in miracles. And were it not for the fact that even attempting to change the definition of "dangerous" is going to cause you to lose the war, I'd back that play.


    I am not up to prevailing, I am still trying not to lose the standard of review you admit we need to win.
    You don't understand. Prevailing means not losing the standard of review we need to win. You cannot separate one thing from the other here, because the question of standard of review comes in the context of a challenge to a law.


    Here's a first we both agree that we will lose on present trends -- I intend to change the trends. You may be surprised how many respond when you call out the opposition-- folks are smarter than the opposition thinks.

    Question is will we use that to our advantage...
    I agree. But we have to do this in such a way as to not make the fencesitters think we're loony tunes. I see no way to make the "guns are not dangerous" argument without that.

    And simply avoiding the question of dangerousness isn't going to get you anywhere, because that is precisely where the opposition is going to go.

    This is why my view is that if we're going to deal with dangerousness at all, it must be in the context of necessity. Arms are dangerous because they have to be. The right to effective self-defense is fundamental, inseparable from the right to life. You cannot ban effective arms without eliminating the right to life. Therefore, you cannot eliminate the "dangerousness" without eliminating the right to life. It's that simple.

    Corner the opposition. Make them look ridiculous. Put them in a position that they simply cannot argue their way out of. It's the only way I can see us winning. We have the means to do this. But our target audience must be one that at least acknowledges the right to self defense. The courts that are in opposition to us do not even acknowledge that much. There is no argument in the universe that you can make that will convince them to side with you, because they want the government to have sole power over life and death -- including yours.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I agree. But we have to do this in such a way as to not make the fencesitters think we're loony tunes. I see no way to make the "guns are not dangerous" argument without that.


    I have done this. Attributing dangerous to objects is not rational, and as soon as fence sitters realize that I am not kidding, and that I am not the one playing Orwellian games we get to real the real issues.

    Telling skiddish folks that you need dangerous arms of necessity leads directly to claims of paranoia -- even that question is suggestive--- a person who claims to need dangerous items is dangerous ..

    My guns are not dangerous to me or anyone else because I am not dangerous. Trust me -- trust me with guns-- trust my guns. Some people are dangerous -- some of them have guns, the problem is not the guns, it the people.

    Why do you think CCW shall issue is spreading ? Op force is throwing everything they can at us. When they try to play nice they say " well maybe you are not a problem, but guns are dangerous -- not everyone is responsible like you". classic divide and conquer. You support training right ? You don't mind registration and background checks right ?

    See even they know the problem is not guns -- its people -- op force will tell you what they most fear -- when the dirty tricks stop working because we know the game as well as they do.

    Only difference between by position that guns are not dangerous and mine, is that they do not care. its all a con game. And they also agree people are the problem -- by which they mean anyone who is not them.

    This is the face of op force. You will not win by yielding. And you can not win by claiming

    The right to effective self-defense is fundamental, inseparable from the right to life. You cannot ban effective arms without eliminating the right to life. It's that simple.

    or

    because they want the government to have sole power over life and death -- including yours.

    You will be easily made to look paranoid.

    You must first impeach the claims of the opposition.


    When we discuss Locke you will see that self defense is a very novel 'right ' and even today it is not in anyway a first class right --- there is a reason for this and it dates all the way back at least to Plato.

    You will not win on this because it is not a first class right -- hence the idea that a self dense claim is just an affirmative defense to homicide.. and its still a homicide -- note well it will always be a homicide , utill the state retroactively blesses it .. what 'right' requires permission?-- this one does.

    Push on this to hard and I see major issues, our country is not Lockean, never was...

    Now if you insist there is no other way -- fine. I will keep doing what I am doing because exposing the opposition as a con game is a very necessary first step.

    All I have to do is get folks to ask a few questions.

    How many non criminal shootings occur per year in the US per capita ? Per firearms ?

    How many are accidents ? per capita ? Per firearm

    Is the trend up or down ? why ?


    It all flows from one Challenge: Prove that guns are dangerous.. then we talk ... otherwise goodbye .


    And no one has tried to have me committed. Op force already knows the truth so they walk away -- the moderates see an easy win and take the bait -- then they start asking all kinds of questions ..

    I goes over better that talk of tyranny that I can assure you ...
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    I have done this. Attributing dangerous to objects is not rational, and as soon as fence sitters realize that I am not kidding, and that I am not the one playing Orwellian games we get to real the real issues.

    Then what have you to say about the notion of not banning individuals from owning nuclear arms, seeing how it's the person, and not the object, that's dangerous?

    You may not like me asking that question, but I assure you, the opposition will, and at the most inopportune time, at that. You will have to answer the question. Evading it will only make you look insincere and untrustworthy.

    Remember, this is a fight against the opposition for the support of the public and/or the courts. Whoever has the most compelling argument, in the eyes of the public and/or the courts, is going to win. That means your argument had better have no holes.

    That question, if you cannot answer it sincerely, convincingly, and in such a way as to neutralize it, is the hole in your argument.



    Telling skiddish folks that you need dangerous arms of necessity leads directly to claims of paranoia -- even that question is suggestive--- a person who claims to need dangerous items is dangerous ..
    So is it your claim that people do not regard automobiles as dangerous?

    If they do regard them as dangerous (and they do, which is precisely why driving on public roads is a licensed activity), then those who claim to need automobiles must be dangerous, by the argument you're raising here, right?


    Only difference between by position that guns are not dangerous and mine, is that they do not care. its all a con game. And they also agree people are the problem -- by which they mean anyone who is not them.
    Misunderstand the opposition, and you will lose against them. You clearly understand that they agree that people are dangerous. But you misunderstand their argument.

    Their claim is not solely that guns are dangerous, but that it is the guns that make the people in question too dangerous. Which is to say, their claim, which is incorrect, by the way, but it's their claim nonetheless, is that without guns, the people in question would at least not be as dangerous as they are.

    Hence, they claim, by eliminating guns, you reduce the danger the people in question are capable of posing to others.


    This is the face of op force. You will not win by yielding. And you can not win by claiming

    The right to effective self-defense is fundamental, inseparable from the right to life. You cannot ban effective arms without eliminating the right to life. It's that simple.
    Really? What exactly is not compelling about that statement, in the eyes of the average person? Do you really think the average person believes they have no right to life?


    or
    because they want the government to have sole power over life and death -- including yours.
    That statement was not meant as an argument against the opposition. It was an argument meant for you, an illustration of why you will not prevail no matter what you do in certain courts (namely, the ones that the statement you quoted refers to).


    When we discuss Locke you will see that self defense is a very novel 'right ' and even today it is not in anyway a first class right --- there is a reason for this and it dates all the way back at least to Plato.

    You will not win on this because it is not a first class right -- hence the idea that a self dense claim is just an affirmative defense to homicide.. and its still a homicide -- note well it will always be a homicide , utill the state retroactively blesses it .. what 'right' requires permission?-- this one does.
    Self defense is an affirmative defense to homicide not because it's not a first class right, but because there is no way to effectively distinguish between the claim of self defense and an actual homicide otherwise. Were it sufficient to merely assert self defense and have it treated in exactly the same way that other first class rights are treated, then it would be impossible to prosecute anyone for homicide. So it's because of the practical issues surrounding this that it is the way it is. I would not be surprised, however, if it needs to be strengthened in that context.


    Push on this to hard and I see major issues, our country is not Lockean, never was...

    Now if you insist there is no other way -- fine. I will keep doing what I am doing because exposing the opposition as a con game is a very necessary first step.
    Oh, I completely agree with you on that, but I do not see that it is necessary to claim that arms are not dangerous, only that their dangerousness is not the problem.


    It all flows from one Challenge: Prove that guns are dangerous.. then we talk ... otherwise goodbye .
    Then why don't you let your little kids play with guns?



    And no one has tried to have me committed. Op force already knows the truth so they walk away -- the moderates see an easy win and take the bait -- then they start asking all kinds of questions ..

    I goes over better that talk of tyranny that I can assure you ...
    Of that I have no doubt! Most people are not thinking in the terms that would be necessary to confront the problem of tyranny. It's certainly best not to go there with them on that.

    One step at a time, right?
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Then what have you to say about the notion of not banning individuals from owning nuclear arms, seeing how it's the person, and not the object, that's dangerous?

    You may not like me asking that question, but I assure you, the opposition will, and at the most inopportune time, at that. You will have to answer the question. Evading it will only make you look insincere and untrustworthy.

    Remember, this is a fight against the opposition for the support of the public and/or the courts. Whoever has the most compelling argument, in the eyes of the public and/or the courts, is going to win. That means your argument had better have no holes.

    That question, if you cannot answer it sincerely, convincingly, and in such a way as to neutralize it, is the hole in your argument.


    This is the perfect win for us.

    1. they crossed into crazy first.
    2. Nuclear arms are not guns. I made no statement about Nuclear arms and I am no more asking that they be legal that I am asking to the criminal code to be over turned.

    3. I have not in fact made any affirmative case for or against the proposition that guns are dangerous -- I have simply asserted that they have no offer of proof and impeached the that proof

    4. I am not compelled to make no distinction between millita arms, which have a self defense use, and military arms which may not. This is a slippery slope and I am not on it.. It does not follow that if you can't ban one class of arms you can' ban any and that therefore if you can ban at least one class of arms you can ban them all.

    5. One goal is to smoke out the crazies -- most of this is baiting and slipery slope, and i only enagge at all until I know for sure .


    My reply " I will agree to sign the NNPT in exchange for national CCW " -- deal ?


    Treating these folks seriously is a ban idea.


    If they start babbling about nukes it means you have won -- declare victory and go home - make sure their is an audience.

    So is it your claim that people do not regard automobiles as dangerous?

    If they do regard them as dangerous (and they do, which is precisely why driving on public roads is a licensed activity), then those who claim to need automobiles must be dangerous, by the argument you're raising here, right?




    You do know that it was not always a licensed activity right? That this was response to measured need based on misconduct. That at the time many did fear cars and wanted then banned -- they felt that the desire to go over so fast was evidence of metal illness .. you know all that right.? Sanity prevailed. Folks leaned to accept the unaccepable - they realized that regulating behavior was the correct approach and that cars were not in fact ' devil machines '

    I would be overjoyed if all they did is regulate behavior -- but that is not there intent and until they stop proposing bans I do not concede anything. And every time you do you step in a trap -- by now this should be crystal clear .



    Self defense is an affirmative defense to homicide not because it's not a first class right, but because there is no way to effectively distinguish between the claim of self defense and an actual homicide otherwise. Were it sufficient to merely assert self defense and have it treated in exactly the same way that other first class rights are treated, then it would be impossible to prosecute anyone for homicide. So it's because of the practical issues surrounding this that it is the way it is. I would not be surprised, however, if it needs to be strengthened in that context.

    And that is the definition of not being a first class right. I am not at this time going to make the case against this aspect of common law ( There is one - but most folks will not go for for reasons that go all the way back to Plato )I just point out the risk wrt to 'rights' since it is in a distinct class

    Oh, I completely agree with you on that, but I do not see that it is necessary to claim that arms are not dangerous, only that their dangerousness is not the problem.

    Strong form weak form . It is works very well . But there is an additional issue -- just because its not 'the problem ' does not mean its not part of the problem. Unless you can answer the question ' How many dead children is acceptable " you are on the slippery slope,, and unlike the 'nuclear arms question ' its very reasonable to ask and there is not real answer. " If it saves one life' is the slippery slope you are on--but i ma not-- I blame criminal misconduct and offer a remedy in the criminal law.


    Then why don't you let your little kids play with guns?

    First many of us do. After they have been trained. We do not teach guns to be safe with children we teach children to be safe with guns. Second children are dangerous. So are adolescents and in fact many adults. Once more I say regulation of behavior is acceptable, regulation of guns is not , unless it will pass SS.

    The government has ample remedy in the criminal code to deal with all the dangers it erroneously attributes to guns, and perhaps if the court will close of this ridiculous inane misdirection of police resources they might actually ' save one life'.

    If the war on guns follows the pattern of the war on drugs i expect the actual increase in crime to be about 10 fold.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    This is the perfect win for us.

    1. they crossed into crazy first.
    2. Nuclear arms are not guns. I made no statement about Nuclear arms and I am no more asking that they be legal that I am asking to the criminal code to be over turned.

    Well, you can substitute any other weapon that is tightly regulated for what people regard to be quite valid reasons, e.g. explosives. Are you going to claim that the question is just as crazy when you're talking about any explosives at all?

    If so, what makes that question crazy when applied to those other weapons but not crazy when applied to guns?


    And simply stating that "nuclear arms are not guns" is merely another way to avoid the question. Both are arms. Both are used by an entity to bring harm to others. Both can be used for defensive or offensive purposes. So what makes guns so special that they are beyond regulation whilst more powerful arms are not?


    3. I have not in fact made any affirmative case for or against the proposition that guns are dangerous -- I have simply asserted that they have no offer of proof and impeached the that proof
    Their "proof" is that we don't let little kids (below some minimum age or ability, at least) play with them, which proves there is some attribute which most people call "dangerousness" that guns have that other objects, that we do let little kids play with, don't have.

    Look, you can't just ignore that problem, because the opposition will raise it. And they have the definition on their side, because it is their definition that the general public uses.


    .
    .
    .
    First many of us do. After they have been trained. We do not teach guns to be safe with children we teach children to be safe with guns.
    And why is that needed?

    Again, you're avoiding the question. You're doing that nicely, by the way, but you're still avoiding it all the same.


    Second children are dangerous.
    If you attempt to assert that, you will be laughed out of the room.


    So are adolescents and in fact many adults. Once more I say regulation of behavior is acceptable, regulation of guns is not , unless it will pass SS.
    And it is on you to show why regulation of guns is not but regulation of other weapons is.

    Again, your argument must be airtight. If it is not, the opposition will blow holes in it and you will lose. Ignoring a question does not add solidity to your argument.


    The government has ample remedy in the criminal code to deal with all the dangers it erroneously attributes to guns, and perhaps if the court will close of this ridiculous inane misdirection of police resources they might actually ' save one life'.

    If the war on guns follows the pattern of the war on drugs i expect the actual increase in crime to be about 10 fold.
    I'm fully in agreement. The reason the antis fail is that they refuse to recognize that criminals are dangerous because of what they do, not what they use and, further, that as a result, they will go to whatever lengths they must to get their hands on deadly weapons.

    As with so many other things, you can address the problem in one of two ways: you can decrease liberty (add restrictions), or you can increase liberty. Decreasing liberty doesn't work. The "war on drugs" proves this. That leaves only the other option: increasing liberty. That means ensuring that the good citizenry has the option of arming itself so as to be able to effectively deal with any criminal assault.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    You still think we have the burden if proof. We don't. I don't need an air tight argement not even close. They know this and this us why they shift the burden. I do not have to prove that some other hypothetical ban will pass SS or not. I need only argue one case at a time and even that in the form of impeaching the offer of proof
    .
    Don't think children are dangerous.?.. then why is it called endagerment to leave them unattended.. guns or no guns?

    A gun left alone is safe. I child left alone is not.. hum? This raises questions.. ..questions is all we need.

    You keep saying I need an agruement.. I don't. That's what is meant conceding the burden of proof.

    Hell they can't even prove that the problem exists because its statistical noise..

    Feel free to get the public to buy your idea of " not unacceptably dangerous' , I know they are that sophisticated so I am going to make them think...I am not going to make subtile distinction that they will not get...I am going to challenge every lie they have been told

    You could ,at least, to be consistent, claim that you think your aproch will work...but you say you don't think it will work..


    This really is a puzzle...

    I don't get on slipery slopes... and it pisses of liberals every time.

    I don't need to prove we can ban nuclear weapons... that issue is not before the court. If it ever comes up I have lots of ways to make it work and not one contradiction.

    In fact I hope op force makes that argument... " if we can't ban ar-15's we can't ban nuclear arms "

    "Mr justice if the government can't make a SS case to ban nuclear arms then they must really think that such arms are no different than ar-15's. And I promise to represent the government as a charity case should that be needed. I claim only that ar-15 are in fact not nuclear weapons. And I think this court is quite capable of making such distictions even if opposition counsel is unequal to the chalenge"

    I also don't attack straw men..I would be happy to attack the governments offer of proof that no such ban could survive SS, but in fact they have made no such offer.

    Burden of proof is the entire game.

    Prehaps more latter. Prehaps the hourse is long since dead.

    I am not concerned about not getting SS because of nuclear arms ..


    I intend to change the terms of the debate. If can't its time stop digging anyway...
     

    Alutacon

    Desert Storm
    May 22, 2013
    1,120
    Bowie
    e
    Because that will not bind the court. We must realize that many on the court really do not care what the founder s thought. More dangerously the public cares even less.

    Wish it were not so. If we needed to defend the 2a from a constitutional amendment or a con con run by leftists how would we do it? I an not willing to rely on originalism its to dicey...

    We need to win the public mind.

    It is a frequent practice of courts to rely on original intent in the formulation of their decisions, particularly when there is no binding authority to hold them to. Many judges will make a decision and then reverse engineer the rationale for that decision. In so doing, history, text etc. are often relied upon heavily. While not considered binding authority, it is certainly persuasive authority.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    You still think we have the burden if proof. We don't.

    We have the burden of proof if the audience we're attempting to convince says we do. Period.

    If the opposition asks us a question in the presence of the audience and we avoid the question, such avoidance will set up the expectation on the part of the audience that we should have answered the question, and our credibility will be damaged as a result of such refusal.

    This is especially true in the courts. It's what briefs and counterbriefs are for.


    Don't think children are dangerous.?.. then why is it called endagerment to leave them unattended.. guns or no guns?

    The opposition would claim that it's called endangerment because leaving children unattended in that way means leaving them unattended in an environment that is dangerous to them in the absence of parental supervision. In other words, the opposition will claim that it is the environment that is a danger to the child, and not the child that is a danger to himself or others, and that the role of the parent is to protect the child from the dangerous environment.


    A gun left alone is safe.

    So are all weapons, including explosives. Hence, the logic you are using here must apply equally to those other weapons as well.


    I child left alone is not.. hum? This raises questions.. ..questions is all we need.

    Correction: questions that the opposition cannot adequately answer are all we need. Questions that the opposition can answer to the satisfaction of the audience do us no good unless they lead to a logical contradiction in the opposition's position.


    In fact I hope op force makes that argument... " if we can't ban ar-15's we can't ban nuclear arms "

    That won't be their argument. Their argument will be that "both nuclear arms and ar-15s are dangerous, and therefore there is cause to ban both of them".


    I intend to change the terms of the debate. If can't its time stop digging anyway...

    I am all for that, frankly, but it's going to require that you cover your flank.
     
    Last edited:

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Look you do not need to show that you will prevail if you get SS, but you must show that you can. Thats why we need the questions if the op force actually manages to make a case it will be for the first time, so i think its a good idea to see if they can.

    I do not know why you insist on conceding the burden or why you think its a virtue but its not.


    Now you have to see that

    That won't be their argument. Their argument will be that "both nuclear arms and ar-15s are dangerous, and therefore there is cause to ban both of them".

    is why you have lost. It is done.

    Only you ,and I guess op force, are wedded to the notion that anything that is dangerous( sufficiently in your case ) can be banned. You have decide that there is an acceptable level of dead children and they disagree. The court will deny SS since they have made the we cause , and you have condeded that it is not like speech.


    Since I can't get you see this -- at least ask you self why you think they use slippery slope ?

    It is not necessary to prove that a ban on nuclear weapons will pass SS in order to claim that a ban on ar-15s will not. And it is not necessary to use 'dangerous' to ban a class of weapons that is arguably not protected at all--, yet another slippery slope you have steeped on.


    I am not responsible for proving that the the government can ban Nuclear arms, and if you think you are -- then frankly op force should win.

    Just for laughs ever wonder what it would be like if we stopped steeping in obvious traps --I know that's not possible but i can dream .. ;)


    So are all weapons, including explosives. Hence, the logic you are using here must apply equally to those other weapons as well.

    This is just BS. Its the classical slippery slope. Llet the damn government actually make a case for once-- thing just maybe there might be a relevant difference between classes of weapons ? Think if the government actually tried they could make a case ? are you so afraid they can't ..

    Did it occur to you that explosive are not a weapon, and certainly not a militia arm -- or are you still not making the distinction with military arms.. Can they ban explosives as a demolition tool -- or use in mining. or only as weapons ? or perhaps they can only ban them as tools but not as weapons or maybe they can't ban them at all but only regulate there use -- just like guns..


    Once more and once more only -- the purpose of the claim is to force the opposition to make a case. If you do not then for any justice that think SS is to high a standard for anything dangerous you will never get to make the case that it is is not unacceptably dangerous' You must make the case as if RB was the standard. When you do you will be able to make the case and the court will need to consider it, before setting the standard of review.

    Then they will need to show why you have failed to impeach the governments case, and if you do it right they will realize that SS has to be the standard, because otherwise the government could ban toothpicks as a felony weapons charge.

    You can not get the court to set SS if you concede what they need to hold that SS is not the standard --this is not the courts issue its yours - here you have the burden to force the opposition to make the case and impeach it.

    Best to lose trying -- and I guarantee the court will not bat an eyelash at this technique its a few thousand years old -- no flank covering needed.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Look you do not need to show that you will prevail if you get SS, but you must show that you can. Thats why we need the questions if the op force actually manages to make a case it will be for the first time, so i think its a good idea to see if they can.

    I do not know why you insist on conceding the burden or why you think its a virtue but its not.

    I am not conceding the burden. I am showing you the arguments the opposition will be putting forth, and the usage of terms that will be involved in their argument, and how that usage of terms agrees with that of the audience we're trying to convince.

    In short, I'm showing you what you're up against, something that you steadfastly refuse to understand.

    If you do not understand your enemy, you cannot defeat it. But moreover, if you do not understand your audience, then you cannot convince it.

    It appears to me that you're failing on both counts here, and that's a real problem.


    It's a real problem because I agree with you. You're talking to someone here who already believes as you do. If you cannot convince me that your argument is airtight, there is no way in hell you'll be able to convince the general public.


    is why you have lost. It is done.
    No. You confuse me for the opposition. I am telling you what arguments the opposition will be making in front of the audience. You have the burden of answering these arguments, because they will be made.


    Only you ,and I guess op force, are wedded to the notion that anything that is dangerous( sufficiently in your case ) can be banned. You have decide that there is an acceptable level of dead children and they disagree. The court will deny SS since they have made the we cause , and you have condeded that it is not like speech.
    No, I am not wedded to the idea at all. My actual viewpoints on all this are very different, for quite a number of reasons. But the general public's ideas are the ones I'm describing here. You must cater to the audience, speak in their terms, meet the burden of proof they insist upon, because it is they you are trying to convince of the rightness of our cause.


    Since I can't get you see this -- at least ask you self why you think they use slippery slope ?

    It is not necessary to prove that a ban on nuclear weapons will pass SS in order to claim that a ban on ar-15s will not. And it is not necessary to use 'dangerous' to ban a class of weapons that is arguably not protected at all--, yet another slippery slope you have steeped on.
    You clearly aren't seeing the argument I'm showing you. It's very simple, and one that will resonate with the public (and that is what makes it so dangerous to us), because it uses terms in the way the public already understands.

    The argument is this: dangerousness is an attribute of an object. It is the danger to which people will be exposed as a result of someone either accidentally or maliciously misusing the object, i.e., interacting with it in such a way as to cause harm to innocents. We know it is an attribute of the object because varying the object while keeping the person constant varies the resulting danger.

    Weapons are dangerous by design. Inherent in their design is the fact that misuse (accidental or otherwise) will expose the public to significant danger.


    Hence, the opposition will naturally raise the question: if more powerful weapons can be banned because they are dangerous as described above, what makes less powerful weapons exempt from such consideration?


    All I'm telling you here is that you cannot escape the "dangerousness" argument. You just can't. You must address it if you are to prevail, because your audience will insist that you do so.



    I am not responsible for proving that the the government can ban Nuclear arms, and if you think you are -- then frankly op force should win.
    No. You are responsible for proving that the government cannot ban firearms, since it is a given that it can ban more powerful arms.


    Just for laughs ever wonder what it would be like if we stopped steeping in obvious traps --I know that's not possible but i can dream .. ;)
    You can't avoid stepping into the trap if the trap is directly in the path you need to take to get to victory. All you can do is disable the trap. That is precisely what I'm asking you to do here: disable the trap.



    This is just BS. Its the classical slippery slope. Llet the damn government actually make a case for once-- thing just maybe there might be a relevant difference between classes of weapons ?
    The burden of proof is not going to be on the government to prove that there is a difference in weapons, it's going to be on us. The above "dangerousness" argument will be made by the opposition, and that is what will demand that we prove the difference.


    Think if the government actually tried they could make a case ? are you so afraid they can't ..
    No, what I'm afraid of is that they can make the case, to the audience, that all arms can legitimately be subject to bans because of their "dangerousness".


    Did it occur to you that explosive are not a weapon,
    Weapon: something used to injure, defeat, or destroy. This definition comes directly from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It cites a club, knife, or gun as examples, but explosives most certainly qualify. If you don't believe that explosives qualify, then take it up with all those people who have been injured, defeated, or destroyed by hand grenades and other forms of explosives. Take it up with the military, which calls these things arms (e.g., nuclear arms).

    No, you'll get nowhere with that argument.


    and certainly not a militia arm -- or are you still not making the distinction with military arms..
    I'm not invoking the militia here at all. For this exercise, I'm showing you what arguments you're going to be up against. These are the arguments the opposition is going to be making against you in front of the audience.


    Once more and once more only -- the purpose of the claim is to force the opposition to make a case. If you do not then for any justice that think SS is to high a standard for anything dangerous you will never get to make the case that it is is not unacceptably dangerous' You must make the case as if RB was the standard. When you do you will be able to make the case and the court will need to consider it, before setting the standard of review.
    And I'm showing you exactly the case the opposition will make. Once they do, you have to defend against it as well as making your own case. Merely making your own case is not sufficient. It's not sufficient because the case the opposition is making reflects the restrictions on other dangerous items that the government has already enacted.


    Best to lose trying -- and I guarantee the court will not bat an eyelash at this technique its a few thousand years old -- no flank covering needed.
    If you don't cover your flank against the enemy's arguments, then they will demolish you with them. And that is something I'm trying to get you to think about so that you can succeed in your endeavor.
     

    TheGunnyRet

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 27, 2014
    2,234
    Falling Waters, WV
    Must be too early in the morning for my brain to function properly but I don't know what SS means in this context.

    Part of the problem with our growing tendency to abbreviate everything is that some abbreviations start to repeat for very different words. The first thing that came to mind was Social Security, but I didn't readily see the correlation between that and guns.

    But then again, I'm old and WTFDIK? :innocent0

    With you on that except it's WTFDIC not (K)- case in point..."SS & IS".
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    e

    It is a frequent practice of courts to rely on original intent in the formulation of their decisions, particularly when there is no binding authority to hold them to. Many judges will make a decision and then reverse engineer the rationale for that decision. In so doing, history, text etc. are often relied upon heavily. While not considered binding authority, it is certainly persuasive authority.

    If they they were not so openly hostile to the 2a, some of them, this would be sufficient. We need a backup plan. We need o show that the world will not end is folks are armed-- lucky for us,many states have gone shall issue better, an have not banned guns and the world did not end.

    We need to use that, no matter how much we think the court wlll honor the founders-- at least 2 justices will not I wager.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    In short, I'm showing you what you're up against, something that you steadfastly refuse to understand.

    If you do not understand your enemy, you cannot defeat it. But moreover, if you do not understand your audience, then you cannot convince it.

    It appears to me that you're failing on both counts here, and that's a real problem.


    Then why is is it that you don not think your strategy will work ?

    I know exactly what I am up against. The slippery slope. There is only one way to defeat the slippery slope -- don't get on it.

    I know by now that once you decide something no evidence of counter argument can change it. So be it.



    I intend to stay off the slippery slope. I know strong form / weak form works. And I know that public arguments are psychological not logical. I know that you can win the war by losing a battle-- the only way to get the curt to move in our direction is to make it look like we 'lost' our extreme position, and had to settle for what we got.

    And it I thought my strategy was not going to work I would find another one. the real issue is not who of us is right, its what are you going to do about the that fact that neither of us thinks your strategy will work?
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Then why is is it that you don not think your strategy will work ?

    My strategy? The one involving the self-defense based argument and, if "dangerousness" is raised, combined with the "acceptably dangerous" argument and also incorporating your argument that regulation in that context needs to be of people and not of objects? I do think that strategy might win, at least with the public.

    I don't believe any strategy can win in certain courts, such as the 4th Circuit. Those particular courts have made their minds up on the subject and are going to rule against us come hell or high water. They're not interested in hearing our arguments, no matter how compelling.

    But there are other courts in which we might prevail. Frankly, a great deal depends on the panel draw. Peruta proves that.


    No, you seem to be mistaking my probabilistic stance with one of certainty. My belief is that we are unlikely to win, not that doing so is impossible. Regardless, we have to try.


    I know exactly what I am up against. The slippery slope. There is only one way to defeat the slippery slope -- don't get on it.
    You're already on it. That's because the general public is already on it. It is their use of the term "dangerous" that is in play, not yours, and it is also they that you have to convince.


    I know by now that once you decide something no evidence of counter argument can change it. So be it.
    That's not true at all. I've had my mind changed more than once. But it takes irrefutable logic, or indisputable evidence, to do so.


    I intend to stay off the slippery slope. I know strong form / weak form works. And I know that public arguments are psychological not logical. I know that you can win the war by losing a battle-- the only way to get the curt to move in our direction is to make it look like we 'lost' our extreme position, and had to settle for what we got.
    And I'm telling you that the "dangerousness" issue will make our position look extreme if we have no answer for it.


    And it I thought my strategy was not going to work I would find another one. the real issue is not who of us is right, its what are you going to do about the that fact that neither of us thinks your strategy will work?
    It is my belief that the self-defense argument can work. Indeed, there's evidence of it working, because it did in Heller. If the self-defense argument can prevail in the highest court in the land, why can't it prevail with the general public?
     
    Last edited:

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Because its not a first class right? Because not every arm is a self defense arm.

    Push on self defense to hard and you will see why.. . Ours is not a Lockean government..

    In any case. I know what I am going to argue...
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,056
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom