Gun Control: A Realistic Look

[ptschram]

This is actually a very good example of why rights are meant to be understood as given to us by "God", not by some other entity. I tell my students that they don't need to believe in God to understand this point, and 8th graders and high school students get it. The point being that if God gives us our rights, they truly are Human Rights that no one has any business taking away from us.

We have the right to self-protection. That right, along with many other human rights, was preserved for us (just as Jefferson said they should be) in the Bill of Rights. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, it is preserved in the most modern sense the founding fathers could come up with -- you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to defend your country, to the utmost; that is to say, with a weapon. And they put that in there, using the idea of a weapon, specifically because the Revolutionary War was started by the government coming after their guns.

So, back to the beginning. It is a right to be allowed to defend yourself, and I believe it is a right to defend yourself in whatever way you need to. I also believe this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, the fact that it is understood that "arms" means "guns" means that some people look at it as a right given by government, not by God. And here is the problem with that view of rights, and here is why it is important that we do not forget the basis if God in our founding (even if you don't believe) that a government that gives rights can, and historically always has, taken them away.

Said much better than I could have.

The Declaration of Independence laid the groundwork for the Constitution.

As our rights are all "endowed upon us by our creator", it is pretty clear to me that those rights are in fact, God-given. Sadly, those same rights are seen by some as something for them to refuse to me, or worse yet, use my exercising those rights as grounds to restrict those rights.

It is legal for me to have a gun. It is NOT legal for Diane Feinstein or anyone else to try to take those guns away from me absent conviction for felonious criminal activity, an adjudication of mental illness (my wacko intentz postings not withstanding), or other disqualification.

 

[pinkytoe69]

As our rights are all "endowed upon us by our creator", it is pretty clear to me that those rights are in fact, God-given.
.

Rights are endowed upon humans by humans for the purpose of social harmony. No matter where you live, you only have rights until someone more "powerful" than you decides you dont.

In nature there really are no rights. Is this your cave? Mr. Grizzly Bear doesnt seem to think so.

 

[Eric N.]

Well, it's started... Guess we'll find out soon enough what's going to happen..

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house

 

[kennith]

getting tired of hearing this argument. The last 'tyrannical government' that tried to flex nuts on American soil was the japs and who took the fight to them? The second amendment warriors or a well regulated malitia? Most people that use the argument of defending against a government would shit their pants and toss their guns as soon as the first warning shot passed their head.

This thread is like listening to two fat chicks arguing who's skinnier.

Well, you are going to stay the fuck tired, then, because it's not going away. I don't keep firearms to hunt, prepare for zombies, or pick off muggers.

I keep them because I can, and I'll keep them until I die; natural causes or otherwise.

It doesn't matter who took a fight where. It's not only about what happened. It's also about what can happen. There's a famous saying about not keeping an eye on history, and it's dangerously accurate.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[mgreenspan]

getting tired of hearing this argument. The last 'tyrannical government' that tried to flex nuts on American soil was the japs and who took the fight to them? The second amendment warriors or a well regulated malitia?

Maybe, but still a poor argument and you might as well just give up every right if you're going to start picking and choosing ones that "don't apply anymore". The point is that it must be allowed to prevent a threat of a tyrannical government or prevent a tyrannical government from taking and maintaining control. How old is our country? How old was England when our country was created? A lot could happen in the future that you and I don't know about. The forefathers thought of this, understood it, and protected that right for our country(edited for clarification).

edited to add: I'd recommend an in depth study of how the National Guard works and is associated to the active military before you start to say they are the well regulated militia that is referred to. The US military does not count as the well regulated militia either.

Most people that use the argument of defending against a government would shit their pants and toss their guns as soon as the first warning shot passed their head.

1. Doesn't matter because of course some would and I'm sure every noob in the Revolutionary war did, as well. Any war for that matter. If it's new and borderline with death, people will shit their pants.
2. Speculation.
3. Judging the general population based on your experience/knowledge from serving like Corprin's logic in the other thread is lame and lacks any real merit for the reasons I explained in that other thread.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

The forefathers thought of this, understood it, and gave our country this right.

This is completely incorrect. The founders gave us nothing. They merely wrote into law that is illegal to write another law to take away our ability to keep and bear arms. I'm not trying to nitpick, but this is an important distinction.

The rights as affirmed in the Bill of Rights are negative rights. They prevent the government from taking things away from its citizens. They are the devil to a progressive politician. They explicitly limit the power of the government.

 

[knewsom]

?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?
~George Washington

 

[1MITCH1]

?A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.?
~George Washington

Amen

 

[mgreenspan]

This is completely incorrect. The founders gave us nothing. They merely wrote into law that is illegal to write another law to take away our ability to keep and bear arms. I'm not trying to nitpick, but this is an important distinction.

The rights as affirmed in the Bill of Rights are negative rights. They prevent the government from taking things away from its citizens. They are the devil to a progressive politician. They explicitly limit the power of the government.

Yes. You are correct.

 

[jim-00-4.6]

Re posts 106 & 107:
Jesus Fuck!
I agree with Mike Rupp AND Knewsom!
Not just in a general way, or on this topic or that, but in the SAME THREAD!

GAHAHAAAAAAA! my head is going to explode!!!

 

[RBBailey]

Rights are endowed upon humans by humans for the purpose of social harmony. No matter where you live, you only have rights until someone more "powerful" than you decides you dont.

In nature there really are no rights. Is this your cave? Mr. Grizzly Bear doesnt seem to think so.

Humans aren't bears. And until you see differently, you won't understand that we don't give each other rights.

If we do, we are screwed. That would mean any one right could be deemed more important than others for arbitrary reasons. Or that any one agenda-driven right could be counted as more important by any one group or individual. It would also mean that any right we have has just as much validity being given as it does being taken away. In short, it would mean Hitler was right.

Jefferson in particular was very specific (and I know you are probably smarter than he was, but...) he made sure to state that the purpose of a government is to preserve rights, not to create them.

And when it came to the Bill of Rights, it was not a list of things they wanted to have, it was a list of things they all knew and understood that they already had and they wanted to make sure the government had the Bill of Rights in order to make sure those things were not taken away. The argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists really came down to whether they needed to be so specific as to write it all down -- the Federalists thought the future generations would still understand this stuff as self-evident, so the Bill of Rights was seen as redundant!

As I said, you do not need be a Christian or a believer to understand that there must be something beyond humanity that we at least need to pretend that our rights come from, or none of it matters.

 

[RBBailey]

This is completely incorrect. The founders gave us nothing. They merely wrote into law that is illegal to write another law to take away our ability to keep and bear arms. I'm not trying to nitpick, but this is an important distinction.

The rights as affirmed in the Bill of Rights are negative rights. They prevent the government from taking things away from its citizens. They are the devil to a progressive politician. They explicitly limit the power of the government.

You are absolutely right in this, but I would clarify it by saying that it isn't that they didn't give us anything, it's what they gave us that we are discussing. They wrote down what we are all supposed to know because they understood at least that a good government could turn tyrannical (many of them considered themselves loyal subjects to the crown right up to the end, and George was considered a good king) and they tried to keep this from happening by being explicit in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

They did not give us any rights. They merely made sure the rights all men have were preserved for a long as possible.

Our lord protector, the President, has also stated that the Constitution has negative rights... but he means that in a negative way. He went on to clarify that the fact that the Constitution has negative rights is really a problem that he would attempt to fix if he had a chance -- not exact quote, but close.

In other words, as he continued to put it, he believes that the Constitution dose not give the government enough control over the people.

Hey, I didn't say it, he did. And now we are beginning to read reports that executive orders are all that is needed to reinstate the gun ban, and that it will include ATF powers to enforce the new bits of it -- no Congress needed.

 

[kennith]

Rights are as abstract as universals. They only form when illustrated, and even then are tangible by neither thought nor touch.

If you plan to question the origin of a right, you may as well question the origin of chairness. One way or another, you're going to end up stepping in metaphysical mud.

For practical purposes, a right is any desired aspect of one's existence that will remain until that existence has ceased; an aspect that will not be removed by any manner of effect.

Once it is gone, it is no longer a right. This is why it's important to protect any perceived right you may claim.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[ukoffroad]

Atlantic story, more guns and more control.

Interesting read given the current climate.

 

[knewsom]

I believe this is a more realistic method that anti-gun liberals (as opposed to pro-gun liberals like myself - and I draw a huge distinction here) will use to enact a ban. Baby-steps, not fell-swoops, and the article even says why...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process


Meanwhile, I urge you all to share the following with the other liberals you know, it absolutely mirrors my own thinking as I'm sure it mirrors much of yours on this subject, but in such a way that I think many liberals may be open to it:

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Now, if I could find a "Fellow Liberals: We're wrong on guns, and here's why" article from a prominent progressive, I'd be printing copies and distributing them on the street...

 

[Devildog01]

Humans aren't bears.

I knew if I waited long enough I would learn something from this thread.

 

[p m]

I believe this is a more realistic method that anti-gun liberals.

Kris,

that's what I thought. On a sample of one, I was wrong.
You think you make some progress getting to a commonly-viewed as reasonable and acceptable solution, then ... BAM.
Another empty liberal slogan is fired, and you're back to where you were in the first place.

 

[RBBailey]

I believe this is a more realistic method that anti-gun liberals (as opposed to pro-gun liberals like myself - and I draw a huge distinction here) will use to enact a ban. Baby-steps, not fell-swoops, and the article even says why...

The step by step process, slowly, is called Fabianism. It results in the same thing, it is still wrong, and it is what the current leftists want to accomplish. A slow revolution is still a revolution.

Kris, you and I don't agree on much, but if I ever met you I might be able to gauge whether you are a true liberal or a leftist. Just the fact that you drive a Rover and tote a gun seems to suggest you are a liberal. Don't let the leftists fool you, they are not liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are the people who should be running this country. Liberals and Conservatives can argue and fight about the Constitution without trying to destroy the Constitution. Leftists want rid of the Constitution, the extreme Right would be the same.

 

[knewsom]

The step by step process, slowly, is called Fabianism. It results in the same thing, it is still wrong, and it is what the current leftists want to accomplish. A slow revolution is still a revolution.

Kris, you and I don't agree on much, but if I ever met you I might be able to gauge whether you are a true liberal or a leftist. Just the fact that you drive a Rover and tote a gun seems to suggest you are a liberal. Don't let the leftists fool you, they are not liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are the people who should be running this country. Liberals and Conservatives can argue and fight about the Constitution without trying to destroy the Constitution. Leftists want rid of the Constitution, the extreme Right would be the same.

I don't believe in your LABELS, man! :victory:

In truth, I agree with this statement entirely, and I think the slower revolution is the more difficult one to halt.

Kris,

that's what I thought. On a sample of one, I was wrong.
You think you make some progress getting to a commonly-viewed as reasonable and acceptable solution, then ... BAM.
Another empty liberal slogan is fired, and you're back to where you were in the first place.

Peter, I'm completely befuddled as to what you mean. Are you suggesting that drawing a distinction between pro-gun liberals and anti-gun liberals is somehow ridiculous? I don't think anyone here would deny that I am in fact a liberal, nor that I am, in fact, pro-gun.

If it's about the links, the DailyKOS article I posted is not what I think a good "solution" is. I think it's the strategy that will be employed, and I'm suggesting we find a way to stop it, namely by drawing the line at registration (which would make confiscation entirely too easy). The Sam Harris article is, I believe, extremely intelligent and well-reasoned. If you disagree, I'd really like to know why.

 

[brian4d]

The step by step process, slowly, is called Fabianism. It results in the same thing, it is still wrong, and it is what the current leftists want to accomplish. A slow revolution is still a revolution.

Kris, you and I don't agree on much, but if I ever met you I might be able to gauge whether you are a true liberal or a leftist. Just the fact that you drive a Rover and tote a gun seems to suggest you are a liberal. Don't let the leftists fool you, they are not liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are the people who should be running this country. Liberals and Conservatives can argue and fight about the Constitution without trying to destroy the Constitution. Leftists want rid of the Constitution, the extreme Right would be the same.

This here lies the problem. Republicans believe a 'rape' is gods will and shouldn't be terminated while the Democrats want to throw out the constitution and bankrupt our country. The far left and right have no business on Capitol Hill or the white house.