Comparing Rights

[LadyTevar]

A young NRA gun addict posted a picture to his Facebook feed that compared the right to own a gun to Rosa Park's right to sit where she wanted on a bus. The actual quote on the picture (which I can't share because it's on Facebook) is:

"Why Do I Need to Own an AR-15?
Why Did Rosa Parks Need to Sit at the Front of the Bus?
In a Free Country, There is No Requirement to Show 'Need' to Exercise a Right!"

Talk about your Apple/Oranges fallacy.
I called him on it, and now I'm getting slammed by all his friends.

You're argument was that this isn't a group of people attempting to use laws to oppress a minority group from perusing there rights. Yes it may seem like 'oh but it's just guns no one will miss them' but when you set a precedent for rights to be stripped away on a whim what's to say that it will stop there? Who's to say next we won't be banning Islam or forcing legal imagrents to leave? These are all real possibilities that have been discussed within the last year.

You're arguing "cause", Kathy, not "effect". The cause is irrelevant, the only important thing is the effect, with the effect being a loss of rights. Any loss of rights is a dangerous thing, no matter what the cause stems from.

So, I need a little help rebutting this fallacy, as they are all under the age of 25 and fully drink the NRA koolaid.

[LadyTevar]

Ok... NM. I'm done arguing with the kids.
When they can straightforewardly state that banning their favorite little weapon is absolutely and totally equal to banning a minority member's right to go to a restaurant, drink from the same water fountain, or go to the same school, there is absolutely no reason to continue the argument.

[TheFeniX]

There is merit to their argument, just in a less idiotic way. Gun nuts tend to lean on the 2nd amendment, but the fact is: owning property is a right. You shouldn't have to justify your ownership of property, you should have to justify restricting said ownership.

I could go into a rant about why their particular argument is garbage and provocative, but you already found out why I won't bother: arguing with people on Facebook is a fruitless endeavor. Arguing with people in that age range on Facebook is probably about as enjoyable as the average Big Bang Theory episode.

[Simon_Jester]

The not-stupid argument boils down to "the entire point of having rights is that we do not get to casually pick and choose which ones we enforce." Rights that seem silly or inconsequential to me may not seem thus to you. Rights that I'm not worried about losing, you may be worried about losing. Therefore, once a right is defined, it is best to show that right some degree of respect when crafting laws.

The existence of the right may well prove to be an example of "Chesterton's Fence:"

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselvesseems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease.

But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion...

[madd0ct0r]

Isbt the historic conrext of the right to bear arms well known and well out its period of relevancy?

[Formless]

Isbt the historic conrext of the right to bear arms well known and well out its period of relevancy?

Its an evolving context that remains relevant throughout history, but almost always for the same reasons. Before there were guns, there were laws about who could and couldn't carry a sword in public, for instance. You could always own one since you could be drafted at any time, but unless you were nobility you couldn't carry it on your person. Unless you were in Italy, apparently, where depending on where you were the laws were more permissive or said you could as long as the sword obeyed a length restriction (hence the Cinquedea short sword of northern Italy) or Germany, where some smartass realized that you could abuse the legal definition of a knife (which were always legal to carry) and invented the großes Messer; a sword in all but name and legal status. Compare, incidentally, to this gun, whose manufacturer managed to abuse four different loopholes in the US National Firearms Act to produce a weapon that is a short barreled shotgun in all but name-- technically because of the technical definitions contained in the law its a "firearm," nothing more or less. No, I don't understand the ruling either since it looks like it should be an NFA item in the US (specifically I don't know why they didn't rule it to be a Destructive Device or an Any Other Weapon due to its bore diameter being larger than .50 caliber and its barrel being smoothbore), but it shows that the same patterns pop up across time periods where legislators create a law restricting an item, and in response manufacturers find a legal loophole to exploit.

Anyway, the modern gun control debate has its roots in 19'th century America when repeaters and revolvers became practical and popular and local ordinances started creating similar restrictions on carrying them in public to reduce the crime rate as the restrictions on swords in earlier time periods. However, the change in context was that the earlier restrictions on swords were explicitly class based: German aristocrats turned a blind eye to sword length knives because they were a low status weapon, even as German fencing masters consistently taught messer combat as a standard sword fighting method. By the 19'th century the justification was now the rate of crime, and also eventually lead to prohibitions on other weapons that had been unchallenged in earlier periods such as daggers. At this time in Europe they were more nonchalant about guns compared to today-- even at the turn of the century before World War One you see advertisements for little pocket revolvers targeted at bicyclists for warding off packs of feral dogs (which were a huge problem I guess). However, when gun control reached Europe I'm not at all sure that it was no longer a class issue. Consider that the 19'th century is when you start seeing all sorts of social movements like the anarchists and communists, both of whom were revolutionary class based ideologies not afraid of violent uprising or acts of terrorism. So while the weapons had changed, its arguable whether the underlying motives had changed for either the right to bear arms or/i] the desire to restrict access. Its the same tension that motivated the founders of the US to make the Right to Bear Arms a constitutional right.

Now, the one bit of context that unambiguously has changed in America is the relevance of militias. It was quickly discovered in the war of 1812 that they didn't exactly do their job very well, since militias always preferred to fight in their own state and often refused to chase the British over state lines, which makes sense given that they were necessarily staffed by locals, but also sucked from the perspective of the Federal Government who had a war to fight. I'll let you form your own conclusions about modern militia movements.

[Simon_Jester]

We don't have modern militias, we have modern wanna-be-guerillas and thugs...

Anyway, nice description, Formless. To look at this, some of the underlying issues that are revealed by looking at the right to carry weapons historically:

1) Historically, the right to carry arms is often restricted to people who are 'real' citizens, in the distant historic past, with the controlled underclass not getting that right just as they lacked other rights.
2) As a corollary, it is very common for the dominant class of society to ban the carrying of effective weapons by a disregarded low-status class.
3) This is particularly common at times when mass popular movements are deemed a threat to public order. When the elite fear 'lawless' threats such as peasant uprisings in medieval times, or anarchists and Bolsheviks in the industrial age, they tend to try and prevent these groups from carrying any weapons that might pose a threat to the elite (and their bodyguards and fortified castles/palaces/mansions).

This is the root of the belief that the right to carry arms is important to the liberties of the citizenry. There have been many attempts in historic societies to control the masses and limit the threat they pose in the event of popular unrest, precisely by limiting their access to weapons. Conversely, the masses routinely try to subvert such restrictions by adopting new types of weapons and bypassing the restrictions.

[LadyTevar]

So... in a way the start of a Standing Army pretty much cut the legs out from under the "Well-Equipped Militia" line in the 2nd Amendment?

[Elheru Aran]

So... in a way the start of a Standing Army pretty much cut the legs out from under the "Well-Equipped Militia" line in the 2nd Amendment?

That's one way to look at it. The Constitution (as far as I know) actually doesn't mandate a standing army apart from a clause that mentions that Congress shall have the power to 'raise and support armies'. In general throughout *most* of the US's history, the actual standing military has been pretty small-- a garrison force, with sufficient strength to suppress any internal revolution or uppity Natives, military procurement wound down to a minimum during peacetime periods-- which gets ramped up to full strength via enlistments and drafts during times of war. After WWII, when the Cold War kicked off, that was the pretext used to enlarge the American military to its current strength. This belies the original notion that after wars, soldiers would quickly demobilize and head home. The modern version of a 'standing army' certainly undercuts any possible argument that an armed populace is necessary for civil defense.

[TheFeniX]

So... in a way the start of a Standing Army pretty much cut the legs out from under the "Well-Equipped Militia" line in the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd amendment is an outlier in the Bill of Rights. It's the only amendment that bothers explaining the need for said right. This fact has been used to debate it's intention. Was the militia part of the requirement or just an explanation? Does the "right to keep and bear arms" stand on its own? Another argument I've read is: The State(s) don't keep their own militias anymore, that's on them. That doesn't give them the excuse to restrict the right to bear arms.

The U.S. Bill of Rights, at least from what I learned in my shitty Texas history classes, was based on the 1600s English version (well, the entirety of the Constitution was). Those laws also had a right to bear arms, that specifically notes from what I recall, the right for use in self-defense. So, there's also that. Man, you could argue about the 2nd amendment all day. "Arms" in of itself is a time-specific word. It's pretty obvious the founders meant "firearms" or at least the particular firearms they had at the time. I doubt they intended technology to come so far. Automatic pistols with 50 round drum-mags. Man-portable belt-fed machine guns. I mean, would the amendment cover energy weapons like Phaser Rifles or Blasters?

[aerius]

Man, you could argue about the 2nd amendment all day. "Arms" in of itself is a time-specific word. It's pretty obvious the founders meant "firearms" or at least the particular firearms they had at the time. I doubt they intended technology to come so far. Automatic pistols with 50 round drum-mags. Man-portable belt-fed machine guns. I mean, would the amendment cover energy weapons like Phaser Rifles or Blasters?

Along those lines, what about the 1st Amendment? That one covers freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which at the time was a person getting up on a soapbox and delivering his message to everyone in hearing range, and presses were manual devices that could crank out a fairly limited number of copies of whatever they were printing. These days we have automated printing presses that crank out millions of newspapers and other print material every single day, and I can connect to the internet and have an audience of thousands or more. There's a ton of folks on social media who have millions of followers, one click and their message is spread to millions of people around the country and the world. I could argue that the advancements in communications are even bigger than the ones in firearms, yet there's few people who'd say the 1st Amendment doesn't cover modern newspapers or shit you say on your personal webpage. Everything Donald Trump says is instantly spread through TV, newspapers, and the internet to damn near everyone in the country and beyond, I don't think the founders could ever have imagined that.

[Simon_Jester]

So... in a way the start of a Standing Army pretty much cut the legs out from under the "Well-Equipped Militia" line in the 2nd Amendment?

Firstly, it's "regulated," not "equipped," but that's a detail.

More to the point... yes, frankly, widespread ownership of civilian small arms is not a viable way of maintaining an effective and "well regulated" militia in the US. Not if we're not willing to, oh, require that all able-bodied citizens drill with weapons and basic infantry tactics for one week a year, or something like that. Which is historically what militias did, back when we had "well regulated" militias. Even that wasn't really enough, but it was better than nothing.

Thing is, the idea of a right to bear arms is broader than the right "the right to participate in the militia," which is only part of what the Second Amendment was actually supposed to safeguard.* As I talked about in my last post.
____________

*Because in those days, there was serious concern about certain classes of citizens being forbidden from joining the militia, and of the militia being used as a tool to oppress them. This is why the right to bear arms is protected- specifically the right to use weapons as part of an organized fighting service, not just the right to own weapons.

[His Divine Shadow]

Man, you could argue about the 2nd amendment all day. "Arms" in of itself is a time-specific word. It's pretty obvious the founders meant "firearms" or at least the particular firearms they had at the time. I doubt they intended technology to come so far. Automatic pistols with 50 round drum-mags. Man-portable belt-fed machine guns. I mean, would the amendment cover energy weapons like Phaser Rifles or Blasters?

Along those lines, what about the 1st Amendment? That one covers freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which at the time was a person getting up on a soapbox and delivering his message to everyone in hearing range, and presses were manual devices that could crank out a fairly limited number of copies of whatever they were printing. These days we have automated printing presses that crank out millions of newspapers and other print material every single day, and I can connect to the internet and have an audience of thousands or more. There's a ton of folks on social media who have millions of followers, one click and their message is spread to millions of people around the country and the world. I could argue that the advancements in communications are even bigger than the ones in firearms, yet there's few people who'd say the 1st Amendment doesn't cover modern newspapers or shit you say on your personal webpage. Everything Donald Trump says is instantly spread through TV, newspapers, and the internet to damn near everyone in the country and beyond, I don't think the founders could ever have imagined that.

Modern media has certainly had it's share of responsibility in the spread of mass shootings. Perhaps some common sense regulations re: reporting of these events would be in order.

[Joun_Lord]

Modern media has certainly had it's share of responsibility in the spread of mass shootings. Perhaps some common sense regulations re: reporting of these events would be in order.

While I agree that the "lame stream media" certainly has a hand in how modern mass shootings go down I wouldn't really assign blame to them. The sensationalized shooters, turning these sick twisted lonely losers into celebrities might contribute to others doing the same thing. They are sad fucks worried about nobody liking them, nobody remembering them now and certainly not when they are gone. Well considering the media will even temporarily stop reporting on the Kardashians to report on a mass shooting, will completely dissect every single stupid little detail of the shooter, they will become famous, they will most certainly be remembered.

But while the media are a bunch of whorish vultures that do in some ways contribute to these douches doing their douchey things they certainly are not responsible for them doing it. The douche is. The media makes the people who pull the trigger famous but did not pull the trigger.

I think journalism being more ethical and responsible would be a good thing but other then blatantly illegal shit being illegal I don't think there is any good way to regulate journalism. Letting the government or some watch group tell people how they can report stuff, what they can report, completely kills free speech and allows for news the overlords of the media doesn't like to be removed, censorship.

[Me2005]

This is the root of the belief that the right to carry arms is important to the liberties of the citizenry. There have been many attempts in historic societies to control the masses and limit the threat they pose in the event of popular unrest, precisely by limiting their access to weapons. Conversely, the masses routinely try to subvert such restrictions by adopting new types of weapons and bypassing the restrictions.

I would also add that the firearm, uniquely to historic personal weaponry, is a weapon that bears a certain force on it's own, unattached from it's wielder. A 90 year old woman wielding a shotgun is just as dangerous as a 20-something man. Historically, give that man a sword, an axe, a bow, anything - they all just amplify his already significant physical advantage in a conflict. Even if you give the old woman any of those weapons, she only has a slightly greater chance of keeping herself safe, based more on whatever her physical skill and capabilities are than on the weapon.

So in addition to class/government oppression, I'd add that the amendment likely also exists for protection from personal oppression.

[Simon_Jester]

This is, yes, another motivating factor leading people to desire the right to keep arms. Thank you for mentioning it.

[Formless]

That's... only partially true. Guns are damn heavy and frequently require two hands to use. Don't have two hands? Then if you ever want to shoot a longarm you need a weapon with special accommodations made for you. It also surprised me the first time I held a rifle just how heavy they can be, because at the time I had little appreciation for how much metal is really in them. Some longarms can also kick like a mule, and to this day I still can't hit skeet. You need strength and technique to properly handle the recoil of a lot of weapons. This might seem like less of an issue with pistols since they can be shot one handed, but they are also so heavy that its more practical to use two hands. And of course there are calibers which you would be nuts to shoot one handed-- wrist breakers we call them. They also aren't accurate at long ranges no matter how you grip them when compared to rifles.

It might seem like melee weapons are the ones that need strength to use, but less obvious is that you need strength to stabilize a gun. That's why manufacturers are always looking for new ways to reduce weight, like removing material, using new materials (aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber, etc), shortening the weapon as much as they can get away with, and so on. Meanwhile, swords are only expected to weight about two to three pounds, and if properly sharpened it doesn't take as much force to cut or stab with them than people think. Strength was really needed mainly for defeating other swordsmen in a bind or a grapple.

Now, bows on the other hand...

[TheFeniX]

That's... only partially true. Guns are damn heavy

Dude, what? A rapier is like 2 pounds. A .38 special can range from 1lbs to 5. The S&W 500 is 5-8lbs at max and that thing is a fucking hand-cannon. A Ruger Mini-15 rifle is like... 5 lbs. An AR-15 weighs about the same. Add a pound or two for ammo.

Yea, they make heavy guns. I'm sure a barret .50 weights 30 something lbs. But what guns have you been shooting? My Mossberg 12 gauge is a full length and it couldn't weight more than 10lbs fully loaded.

and frequently require two hands to use. Don't have two hands?

My grandma could fire a .38 special one-handed better than she could use any bladed weapon. Fuck, I know I could. Your post is... strange to say the least. You give melee weapons shittons of credit and jump to the worst case scenario for guns.

I've got a full-length S&W .357 Magnum. The magnums kick, but nothing no one but the elderly or small children couldn't handle. The worst thing about it is the concussion. Put .38 specials in it and it "kicks" like a .22LR.

[Formless]

Uh, dude, swords are consistently 3 pounds and under. The heaviest it gets are some examples of greatswords that are up to ten pounds at the maximum, and those are considered unusual even for greatswords-- its usually about half that, and greatswords are a weapon used on the battlefield or occasionally by bodyguards in spain, not a weapon meant for self defense use or for carrying in a courtly context. There is just less metal in most swords than there is in a gun because blades need to be thin. Yes, handguns can weigh less then a pound. Those guns aren't exactly great self defense guns due to their caliber, barrel length, or ammo capacity. Long guns, which are preferable for home defense, are consistently heavier than the average sword or even most polearms. Your shotgun's weight is consistent with other long guns I have handled. Guns also punish ignorance of safety rules or weaknesses like poor grip or wrist strength in ways that blades never did. A mishandled gun can kill its owner or a bystander. A mishandled blade might slice your hand, and you learn not to do that again.

You also missed the part where I said that firearm manufacturers are constantly looking for ways to cut down on weight. In my experience, the older the gun the more it weighs. And yeah, if you're a smartass you can probably find exceptions to that too. Doesn't prove anything.

You just plain missed the point and are getting angry over observations that are actually pretty simple. Its not that somehow swords are superior or whatever the fuck you read into my post. The point was that firearms don't necessarily even the playing field for just everyone despite their reputation nor are they something that a weak person can necessarily pick up and go to town with. And vice verse, melee weapons, despite their reputation, reward skill more than strength. Swords are light and sharp, made to be a force multiplier for people with average strength for a person of the time period (remembering that more people were employed in physical labor jobs even 100 years ago and definitely earlier than that), and heavier weapons that required strength as a matter of course because of their ergonomics (I'm thinking of axes here) arguably took more skill to get around their inherent weaknesses in terms of agility. But really, is that any different than noting that someone with a terrible aim and bad sights is at a disadvantage against a trained marksman with a better gun? No.

I am merely noting these things because people seem to think that combat with melee weapons is comparable to unarmed combat, where strength is indeed a killer advantage. But the whole reason any weapon was invented historically was to be a force multiplier IF you were willing to learn how to use it. Guns are merely part of that trend, including the last part of that statement.

[TheFeniX]

Uh, dude, swords are consistently 3 pounds and under.

Yes, and their operation is completely outside that of a firearm. A fully loaded AR-15 can be 7-10lbs loaded (depending on model, Carbines are likely even lighter) and there's about no one out there who has average reach and even below average strength that cannot operate one for HOURS. Meanwhile, we used to duel with replica wood swords. You're lucky to last 5 minutes. Weight is subjective to what you are using and guns are just not "damn heavy" outside of certain examples.

Yes, handguns can weigh less then a pound. Those guns aren't exactly great self defense guns due to their caliber, barrel length, or ammo capacity.

Cops carried .38 Special revolvers for YEARS and those things weigh like 2 pounds. A Glock 19 fully-loaded is actually less than that.

Long guns, which are preferable for home defense, are consistently heavier than the average sword or even most polearms.

The AR-15, an extremely popular "modern" gun weighs maybe 10lbs loaded and I've personally seen them fired by a 10-year-old and a lady in her 70s (she was in good shape). I've seen the same woman fire a fully-automatic MP5. You could put either of them up against a fit adult male, with or without a melee weapon, and see what happens. The adult could wait them out until they just got tired keeping them at bay or he could use almost anything solid to accomplish the same thing.

Now give the kid or granny a handgun. Is it a guaranteed win? No, based on luck or circumstances, but with a melee or no weapon it's the same thing except you'd expect them to lose.

No matter how "disabled" you are, if you have 1 functioning hand and 1 functioning eye: there exists a gun you can use to kill people. I'm sure a blind-person could find a way too. You can't say the same thing about a melee weapon. Equalizer.

The point was that firearms don't necessarily even the playing field for just everyone despite their reputation nor are they something that a weak person can necessarily pick up and go to town with.

First off: Who's mad? Second: I fired a .22 at the age of 7, both rifle and pistol (queue the terrible parents line) by myself with only my dad hovering right behind me. Is the .22 a great defense weapon? No. Could I kill someone with it? Fuck yea. Could a 7-year-old realistically kill any adult with any type of melee weapon?

My grandma fell and broke her hip. She wouldn't move in with us or my uncle. So, we wheeled her up the the gun store, she bought a gun, and you could watch granny fire a hammerless .38 Special in a wheelchair, even practicing one handed because (And I quote) "I'd have to hold LD back with my other hand." LD was her poodle. That lady had spirit!

My last CHL instructor lost his left hand in Vietnam. Watching him handle and fire a 1911.... you wouldn't want to get into a gunfight with him. In any kind of physical fight, his injury would put him at a huge disadvantage.

And vice verse, melee weapons, despite their reputation, reward skill more than strength.

Who claimed they didn't? Who the Hell would ever claim a device that can take months to become a neophyte with and YEARS to master relies on strength?

I can teach someone to shoot a gun straight in a day. I've done it, multiple times. If you can remember a few basics, you can literally shoot holes out of a target at center mass. Modern guns, ever since the invention of the cartridge, are just stupidly easy to use and to use them safely. That's a rather large part of their advantage. Just like the crossbow vs the bow.

A friend who had never shot a rifle was (in 3 magazines) shooting vertical nails off a board at 25 yard with my CX4, iron sights. Why? Because it's just that accurate and easy to use of a gun. That's why they are such an equalizer.

[Formless]

Oh fuck off with your nitpicking and anecdotal evidence, asshole. If it will shut you up with regards to the weight issue, just factor in daggers (they're about as effective as some of the smaller pocket pistols anyway). I don't care what your personal experiences with guns are, they are literally besides the point I was making. Your refusal to acknowledge that the conversation about the guns themselves has a historical context is starting to irritate the fuck out of me. We are talking about firearms as a historic milestone, which is why I said that gunmakers are constantly looking for lighter materials to make guns out of. Guess what: they succeeded. Modern guns are lighter than historic guns on average.

Also, read what Me2005 said about melee weapons being mere strength amplifiers, and Simon's agreement with that myth. The point was that guns are not unique among other weapons developed throughout history in being an equalizer. Literally every weapon in history follows that trend in some way or another (there are weapons like bows that do actually require innate strength, but they are still force multipliers by virtue of having range). Guns are the best equalizer invented so far, and I never denied that. They are not, however, magical death wands that anyone can pick up and immediately use effectively. You might be able to teach someone the fundamentals in a day, but that's because you can serve as a teacher to that person. Without a teacher, someone is just as likely to hurt themselves as use the thing correctly. And from my own experiences, that one day is not sufficient to become truly accurate or able to use the thing in a violent encounter. There is still a degree of skill required, just like any other weapon. And skill is passed on through... teaching. Dur.

Is that simple enough for your tiny troglodyte brain to comprehend, or should I expect another round of pointless nitpicking?

(also, wooden wasters are usually blade heavy pieces of junk, and most HEMA practitioners will tell you that they are no good for sparring even if that is historically how knights and soldiers trained)

[Terralthra]

What granny can do at 25 yards is mostly irrelevant to personal safety arguments, because the "granny defending herself from a home invader" will happen at a range of like, 3 yards. At that range, granny's ability to bring a weapon to bear and fire is compromised by how fast an able-bodied attacker can get to arm's reach and take the gun away from her. Unless your hypothetical granny is also skilled in krav maga and marine corps CQC to use her firearm as a melee weapon?

[madd0ct0r]

A young NRA gun addict posted a picture to his Facebook feed that compared the right to own a gun to Rosa Park's right to sit where she wanted on a bus. The actual quote on the picture (which I can't share because it's on Facebook) is:

"Why Do I Need to Own an AR-15?
Why Did Rosa Parks Need to Sit at the Front of the Bus?
In a Free Country, There is No Requirement to Show 'Need' to Exercise a Right!"

Talk about your Apple/Oranges fallacy.
I called him on it, and now I'm getting slammed by all his friends.

You're argument was that this isn't a group of people attempting to use laws to oppress a minority group from perusing there rights. Yes it may seem like 'oh but it's just guns no one will miss them' but when you set a precedent for rights to be stripped away on a whim what's to say that it will stop there? Who's to say next we won't be banning Islam or forcing legal imagrents to leave? These are all real possibilities that have been discussed within the last year.

You're arguing "cause", Kathy, not "effect". The cause is irrelevant, the only important thing is the effect, with the effect being a loss of rights. Any loss of rights is a dangerous thing, no matter what the cause stems from.

So, I need a little help rebutting this fallacy, as they are all under the age of 25 and fully drink the NRA koolaid.

Going back to this, there is the simple argument that one is a right of property, the other is about discrimination based on a person's attributes. The two rights have no shared basis ethically.

[Simon_Jester]

That's... only partially true. Guns are damn heavy and frequently require two hands to use... You need strength and technique to properly handle the recoil of a lot of weapons...

It might seem like melee weapons are the ones that need strength to use, but less obvious is that you need strength to stabilize a gun...

Meanwhile, swords are only expected to weight about two to three pounds, and if properly sharpened it doesn't take as much force to cut or stab with them than people think. Strength was really needed mainly for defeating other swordsmen in a bind or a grapple.

None of this invalidates the point that firearms at least give a physically frail and peaceable person a credible ability to pose a threat to a strong person experienced with violence. Whereas a physically fit person with some experience using hand-to-hand weapons for violence will tend to have major advantages over a weak person who lacks such practical experience, even if the victim is trained to a degree.

Let's not nitpick things to death.

What granny can do at 25 yards is mostly irrelevant to personal safety arguments, because the "granny defending herself from a home invader" will happen at a range of like, 3 yards. At that range, granny's ability to bring a weapon to bear and fire is compromised by how fast an able-bodied attacker can get to arm's reach and take the gun away from her. Unless your hypothetical granny is also skilled in krav maga and marine corps CQC to use her firearm as a melee weapon?

In a home defense scenario granny is likely to have already retrieved the weapon and be at least partly prepared to use it, and the RISK of getting shot is a significant one that no one in their right mind would dismiss. People in real life don't think "it's no problem that granny is carrying a pistol, because I'll just get so close I can grab it out of her hand before she can point in my direction and pull the trigger!"

People are a lot more likely to be intimidated by an old lady with a shotgun than by an old lady with a knife or a baseball bat, in other words.

[Elheru Aran]

People are a lot more likely to be intimidated by an old lady with a shotgun than by an old lady with a knife or a baseball bat, in other words.

As I noted in a discussion elsewhere (debating whether guns were "evil" or whatever... it was not the brightest place... in other words it was Facebook), while swords and other weapons can certainly hurt and kill people, guns have the dual advantage of requiring far less training, and being able to hurt someone significantly even without much training. And they can do this far out of arm's reach, to boot. Nobody is going to get hurt at 20 feet from a sword, unless the sword-wielder throws it... and even then odds are it won't do any good. Put a pistol in the other guy's hands, and suddenly the whole equation changes (and no, I don't care how fast someone can run up at a shooter, if he already has the gun in hand someone's getting shot at).