A right by definition can only be created by the government. You can’t go around just deciding you have enforceable rights just because you decided for yourself that it’s inalienable or god-given.
That’s not a workable or reasonable form of government. A comes into existence when you persuade enough of your fellow citizens that the government should recognize it.
The government is not a thing by itself. It’s a stand in for all of society. If your neighbors decide you don’t have a right, then you don’t have that right until you persuade them otherwise.
Right now, gun rights are treasured by a shrinking minority of increasingly extremist and unreasonable Americans. It might take a few more decades, but they’ll eventually become too small a group to resist gun ownership restrictions.
This is just flat-out wrong. The Declaration does not say that these are the only rights, and the fact that the Founding Fathers included other rights in the Constitution, like free speech and freedom of religion, and peaceable assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms, shows that there are lots of other rights besides those three.
Really, if you won’t read the DoI for content, it makes it that much harder to believe that you can read the Constitution for content. You are oscillating wildly between hyper-literal interpretation, mis-interpretation, and making things up.
You complained above that you were never given an answer as to where the Founding Fathers thought that rights came from. Now you have been given the answer. So from now on, you need to complain that you were given an answer, but didn’t like it.
My right to life is inalienable. Your right to take it is therefore not. Clear?
Read the question again and you might see otherwise. Hint: That wasn’t it. You were asked about the right to gun ownership. That’s been explained to you multiple times, too.
Except for all the middle-excluding you’re doing, yes, that’s the idea. Fewer weapons means fewer killings. That *should *be obvious but somehow is not.
The comment was about how you are seen by others.
After the fact, when your victim is already dead. Maybe we can do better, hmm?
But does anyone else? If someone encounters you on the street with your bangstick, how are they to know you’re actually one of the Good Guys? Yanno, even self-described Responsible Gun Owners get into the news every damn day. Maybe you’re an exception, somebody who can be absolutely trusted, but how does anyone else know? How do YOU even know?
So you’ve never actually encountered one of these Bad Guys? Great. Maybe they aren’t so plentiful as some imagine, then. Maybe the need to protect yourself from them isn’t all that dire.
Well, friend, does possession of the ability to kill people indicate that in any way?
I think it should be noted according to a chart in the article you cited that the murder rate in the United States varies from state to state from a high in Louisiana of 10.8 to a low in New Hampshire of 1.1. The Deep South seems to have a significantly higher murder rate than the rest of the country.
Top Five
Louisiana 10.8
Mississippi 7.4
Alabama 7.1
Michigan 7.0
South Carolina 6.9
Bottom Five
Minnesota 1.8
Utah 1.8
Iowa 1.5
Vermont 1.3
New Hampshire 1.1
Worse than that, it’s incoherent. If the government is the only source of rights, and the government recognizes a right to keep and bear arms, then we must have a right to keep and bear arms. So anyone who argues otherwise must be wrong, pretty much by definition.
I think that’s the point of the question about whether the American Revolution was wrong. If the only rights you have are the ones the government says you have, then it was wrong, because the king said they didn’t have the right to rebel. So either the revolution was wrong, or rights come from somewhere else.
Maybe, maybe not. I would argue that the issue is not so much the proliferation of weapons, but the distribution. Not how many there are, but who has them.
I’ve never noticed anyone shuddering in fear or cowering from my presence, so I think I’m okay.
It must be a miserable existence to view all of humanity as aspiring bloodthirsty killers. For the record, I don’t have any victims.
First of all, no one encounters me on the street with a “bangstick” since I have never carried a firearm openly in public. But, if I ever did have the need to transport a firearm openly on my person and in view of the public – out of respect and concern for my neighbors, I would carry it safely (unloaded with the safety on) and discreetly so as to arouse as little alarm as possible.
Incidentally, I deal with disarmed “bad guys with guns” on a regular basis. But that’s irrelevant. Self defense is a human right. Whether “bad guys” have guns or not, it is fundamentally unjust for the state to inhibit my ability to defend myself.
What you keep missing or overlooking, that I have been saying over and over is that we already have the ability to kill each other even without tools.
I believe he is more likely to have stolen or bought at a gun show. Gun shops call for some type of check. If the guy at the gun show does not have a gun shop, you hand him the money and he hands you the gun.
I lived in the worst part of D.C. in the late 80s when it was the murder capital of the world. I moved to the Bronx soon after, when it was still a war zone. I’ve lived in New York City since 1991, and have stumbled around drunk in all of the worst parts of the city at 4 am in the morning. And yet, never once have I felt the need to have a gun for protection. Not once. Never been approached by a mugger or had my apartment window broken into. I’ve tried to get all those gun nuts out there who insist that they need guns for protection to just admit that they are a bunch of scaredy-cat man-babies, terrified to walk out into the big, bad mean world alone. For some reason, though, they just won’t acknowledge this.
Isn’t that nice for you. I’ve never been the victim of a crime either, nor do I feel the need to have a gun for protection (though I do feel responsible to since I have a family to protect), but human rights are not based on anecdotes or personal experience.
So? I believe that what gun owners believe makes my life less safe and takes away from my liberty. Other than the 2nd Amendment, why should it be like it is? How about we get rid of guns for the next 242 years, and see which way worked best?
Do you mean literally get rid of guns, or do you mean disarm civilians?
Because the former is a (probably) desirable but utopian impossibility.
The latter creates an undesirable and massive imbalance in power between the rulers and the ruled.
That was meant to be food for thought, to contradict the idea that the right of owning guns should just automatically override the idea of not allowing their ownership, just because it’s been that way forever. The idea that gun owners get to have it their way and the rest of us be damned.
I’ve wandered in dangerous neighborhoods at night-time on three continents, and been the victim of street crime multiple times. The only times I’ve been afraid were in the U.S.A. The only cops who’ve ever intimidated me were U.S. cops. I’ve never regretted not packing a gun, nor thought one would help me.
One Doper has confessed that he is sad he’ll never be able to visit Europe since he can’t bring his friendly gun along. Another Doper complains that he can’t visit his child in Alaska for similar reason. I won’t charge those with such perverse devotion to their guns with cowardice, but I daresay that’s how William of Occam would bet.
Disarm the police and I will take gun control advocates’ ideas much more seriously.
This is weird and borderline unbelievable. Are you sure they aren’t trolling? But regardless, it doesn’t negate the reality of the human right to self defense.
That’s silly. In a democratic system, the government is us. You can’t have an operational society if you allow individuals to decide what their enforceable rights are.
That doesn’t mean the list of rights can’t or shouldn’t change. Of course that should be possible. And, indeed, our society and lives have collectively gotten better as we as a society have changed our views on rights.
But this has to be a negotiated, collective decision, for practical reasons, because rights continuously conflict with each other. Every right has limits, and as we learn the lessons of social organization and government, those limits should move.
And right now, gun ownership in the United States is collectively a public health menace, in the same way that vaccine refusers are. It makes no sense to maximize the gun rights of a shrinking minority of people who want to own guns against the public health threats that we are all subject to.
That should be the starting point of all discussions regarding gun rights. Not maximalist “just because I say so” positions.
