My human rights are inherent, not inherited. I have a human right to freedom of expression. That applies no matter what medium I use. People in other countries have various of their human rights curtailed in a systematic and institutional way, to include self-defense. Some accept it. Some are simply unable to change it. Some welcome it. We have people here in the US…Hell, right here at this board…who would happily silence their political opponents, for example.
This poll bolsters my suspicion that gun nuts are basically criminals at heart.
And do you further believe that your INHERENT rights of self defense and freedom of expression should not be curtailed in any way?
I know this thread is moving away from a simple poll, but I’d like to refrain from using derogatory names for people of either side in order to try increase knowledge, if only my own knowledge.
Where are you going with this? Are you working towards springing the clever trap where you ask me if I have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater?
I’m not going anywhere with it. I’m simply asking you for your opinion on whether or not you believe that your inherent rights of self-defense and freedom of expression should be constrained in any way.
I said at the beginning of this thread that there are no gotchas.
Setting fair market value isn’t your option, any more than deciding that $2.85 is fair market value for the new Porsche Carrera you want or $1,753,000 is fair market value for the washing machine you put on Craigslist. Fair market value is set by the market.
OK. In very general terms, I have the right to do anything I like that doesn’t deliberately harm others.
If all the guns must be turned in, there is no market. The government will simply set a figure and those who wish to comply will bend over and take it.
Is that a Yes or a No to the question - “Do you believe that your inherent rights of self-defense and freedom of expression should be constrained in any way?”
that question is so hilariously open-ended that I don’t think anyone will answer to your satisfaction.
at any rate, it technically is already curtailed in many ways. I cannot legally possess a breech-loading handgun or rifle of a caliber larger than 0.50".* I cannot legally possess a shotgun or rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" and/or of an overall length shorter than a certain number.
and freedom of expression is also already curtailed in certain ways. The first amendment does not protect defamatory speech. It also only applies to what the government is allowed to do. It doesn’t protect me when speaking through private channels; e.g. the SDMB is entirely within its rights to censor/modify/delete any post they want for whatever reason.
and to answer your original question: notwithstanding that repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t immediately make firearms illegal, if laws were subsequently passed banning the ones I have then I’d probably comply. I rather enjoy not being a felon.
- shotgun slugs are a peculiar exception to this
why?
That you don’t understand I’m making a point on the cost of giving up a human right is frankly amazing.
A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ would answer it to my satisfaction.
Here, I’ll start - “Yes, I believe my rights of self-defense and self expression should be constrained in some way”
Because I don’t believe your ability to protect yourself is even close to the ability of a cadre of police officers protecting you 24X7. The fact that you do is what is fascinating. Maybe humorous is a better word.
From the first page:
While the federal government has a constitutional right to “take” private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property’s good and bad attributes, would pay.
So the FMV would be what it was before the law was passed.
I’ve done my last promenade in this dance with you.
O K. What do you think is appropriate compensation for the loss of the right to protect yourself? I’ll probably think it’s humorous, but lets here it.
Again, we’re talking about the value of a right, not a specific piece of hardware.
Can we please stop with the literal definition of fair market value of an object.
I’m sure they will weep with the loss of your high regard for them.
No - I do not believe they should be. I believe they must be. The details are what matters.
The right to bear arms would be extinguished, however the right to self defense can never be extinguished, only violated.