There is at least 1 gun control debate running on these boards at any given time. But I think that debating this stuff is a waste of time. And attempting to interpret the 1 sentence 2nd Amendment is foolish.
The fact of the matter is that we are all (except for a very tiny few insane people) in favor of some type of arms control. And we are also all (except for a very few delusional people) in favor of some sort of arms allowances. The only real debate is on where to draw the line.
I believe that citizens being allowed to own kitchen knives and baseball bats would be acceptable to over 99% of the people. I also believe that citizens being allowed to own chemical weapons of nuclear missiles would be unacceptable to over 99% of the people.
So the real debate is: Where do we draw the line? Which arms restrictions and allowances would be most beneficial to society as a whole? And trying to argue this based on what is written in the Constitution is an exercise in futility.
I think, in the US, we are on the right track of check and balance. The line is somewhere near the intended use of the weapon. Weapons obviously made for hunting and sport should be loosely regulated. Weapons obviously made for warfare should be strictly limtied. Small weapons intended for personal defense are easily in. Modest waiting periods for hand guns seems fair enough. The right to keep and bear arms is not limitless and at the same time should not be suspended greatly. I don’t see that we have moved too far from a happy medium and as long as both sides keep up the fight I don’t see it going anywhere extreme in either direction soon.
If you have to ask permission to exercise a right, then it isn’t really a right, is it?
Apart from the advisability of “gun control”; the mere fact that X number of citizens is in favor, or not in favor, of anything shouldn’t mean squat. Tyranny by the majority or Tyranny by the minority (current longstanding trend) doth not good legislation make.
The classical interpretation of the BOR is that rights are bestowed by the Creator, and are taken away or curtailed by Man. The BOR was an attempt, at least, to define what governments cannot do, not what individual citizens can do.
If you are lucky, you are born with legs, arms, a central nervous system, a brain and a working set of lungs. Any “rights” you have are delegated by the society you live in and the laws that society has deemed fit to pass. Even if you are basing this on some sort of religious belief, I find it hard to believe that you found the word “firearm” in the Bible.
Natural law holds that all organizms have the “right” to defend themselves by whatever means they can use. For example, a hermit crab may put a sea anemoae on its shell or a plant may produce toxic chemicals to ward off attack. It follows then, that humans have the right to defend themselves using whatever tools are necessary to meet the attack. (Unless you believe all organisms except humans have a right to defend themselves.)
A gun can be used for defense, and is often preferable to other means such as running, hiding, or a pointed stick, a knife or a baseball bat. Since a human defender has more right to survive than a human attacker, it is reasonable that the defender should have access to tools at least equal to those that may be used against him or her.
Unless you’re the one being attacked. I believe that over 99% of the people would rather be armed with a gun if the need arose than to have to face a gun-wielding attacker with a butcher’s knife.
:rolleyes: And that pertains to firearms… how? NBC weapns (nuclear, bilogical, chemical) are area weapons. They not only hit the target, but cause collateral damage that can spread over hundreds or thousands of square miles. A gun puts a projectile at one target and colateral damage is restricted to misses or ricochets, or less frequently by the projectile going through the target. Your NBC argument is utterly silly.
Leftist disarmament of the masses makes a little more sense when you realize deep down, they just don’t like the idea of the masses being armed. It scares them, as well it should.
The limousine liberals are the classic example – Rosie and friends are anti-gun to the extreme but of course have body guards who are armed. Oddly, two institutions that seem to be despised the most by them – the police and military – are deemed the only organizations that should be allowed firearms.
While being conservative is not without fault, at least we’re consistent – the only hobgoblins of little minds seems to fall squarely on the shoulders of “liberals” (read left wing fascist) like Rosie O.
In simple terms, we have the right to self defense, and this in practice means firearms, specifically handguns. Restricting that right is Evil, even if under “good intentions.”
Czarcasm: your statement is legitimate within the framework of a broad set of values loosely termed “socialism.”
A more “libertarian” set of values would disagree. Hence the debate over “where to draw the line.” Those of us in the pro-gun rights camp feel that the classic interpretations of the 2nd Ad., and Constitutional history, being revised by those in the anti-gun camp is dishonest, and speaks ill of the underlying motives behind those advocating more gun control.
Tedster’s comments about tyranny of the majority/minority coincides four-square with my own: certain rights are inviolable. They are ours by the simple fact that we exist. Whether endowed upon us by our Creator (pick a deity, any deity) or are assumedby us individually upon our birth isn’t ultimately relevant.
The term “reasonable restrictions” is also ultimately not relevant, as the term is too amorphous, too subjective in meaning to the person or group espousing it.
That those of us in the pro-gun rights camp do believe in certain “reasonable restrictions” as regards the right to keep and bear arms is undisputed; the fact that we are so often mischaracterized (demonized) as desiring a “zero restriction” environment (or that we currently have a zero restriction environment) simply because our “reasonable restrictions” aren’t as strict as the Brady Bunch’s “reasonable restrictions” account to the largest degree the hostility and ultimately the roadblock to “reasonable dialogue.”
When the Brady Bunch stops revising history, acknowledges the historical legislative landscape vis-a-vis gun control, and acknowledges the correct underlying principle of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment, then a common ground of language and beliefs will allow a rational, civilized debate on what sort of restrictions are necessary or appropriate.
That’s an interesting reading of natural law there, Johnny. Of course, animals also have a nasty habit of killing each other, even their own species. It follows then, that humans have the right to attack other humans using whatever tools are necessary to accomplish the attack.
And once again Minty takes hold of a reasonable statement, twists it to suit his will, and launches it off into the land of the unreasonable.
You’re just re-iterating exactly what Johnny said, but leaving out the part that you find a bit icky… the part about defending oneself. Yes, humans will be attacked. It’s a fact of life, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something. But BECAUSE we will be attacked - rather, some people will be attacked, but we never know who - we have the right to defend ourselves.
Please try to be a little realistic about this, Minty. Your behavior of taking the pro-gun arguments to absurd extremes is getting tiresome.
That sounds the teeniest but mocking. It is a fact that all organisms have survival strategies. Do you disagree? Taking it further, suppose you are being raped or otherwise attacked. Do you believe that you don’t have a right to resist in any way at your disposal?
Usually not within their own species.
I see a difference between attacking, an overt act, and resisting, an act preciptated by an attack. You don’t?
Intraspecies killing may not be as common as interspecies killing, but it’s far from unheard of, with everything from “fair fights” between more-or-less evenly matched rivals; to members of a social group ganging up on an unwanted individual, either killing it outright, or driving it out to be eaten by the hyenas; to “wars” between groups (in organisms ranging from chimpanzees to social insects); to infanticide.
The state of nature contains a vast amount of what would be, by the ethical standards of human socities, murder, rape, and robbery. It’s true that self-defense is a fact–just about any organism will fight to preserve itself if it has to. And an ethical system or social structure which ignores basic facts is probably doomed to failure. But justifying ethical “oughts” from what factually is is a pretty dicey business.
Of course this thread wasn’t evidently intended to be a discussion of competing theories of rights, or even a general gun control/Second Amendment thread, but a more specific question on how far the right to bear arms goes (whether that “right” is God-given, otherwise axiomatic, or socially constructed)–the right to bear arms means the right to possess weapons–very well, which weapons? I know I’ve seen that specific issue discussed more than once, and perhaps the thread linked to in post two was so definitive that no one has anything else to say on the matter. I have to say, the distinction I’ve seen made–between “arms” and “ordnance”–may be consistent, but at the same time it seems to me that going from a general “natural right of self defense” to a legalistic “right to bear arms (but not ordnance)” necessarily implies a degree of social construction of that “right”. That’s hardly surprising; it’s probably true of all rights to varying degrees, with rights like property rights having an even higher degree of social context to them.
Yes, Johnny, we have a right (though far from unlimited) to defend ourselves. If that right derives from the example of animals defending themselves in nature, on what basis would you draw a moral distinction between defense and attack? Is it simply that you prefer one to the other? Great, so do I. But at least acknowledge that the distinction is your own, not one found in nature.
Oh, and I’m sure you’re aware chimpanzees, our closest relatives, attack and kill each other on occasion. There are plenty of other examples of animals killing their own kind–humans are hardly unique in that respect. On preview, I see that MEBuckner has made the same point.)
And it’s good to see you’re still so polite and well-mannered, SPOOFE. Are you somehow under the impression that your arguments gain persuasiveness if you start by casting aspersions on the person with whom you disagree?
When you consider when the Bill Of Rights was written (1791), you realize that the writers just came out of a time of war, where it would be hard to protect yourself without that right. I think the 2nd amendment is very outdated and needs to be revised.
MEBuckner: I did say usually not within their own species. Certainly ant colonies battle each other; and yes, I’ve heard of chimanzees killing one another. But by and large, most killing takes place between different species.
Why is it such a leap? Before there were guns, or even laws as we understand them, our ancestors armed themselves with sticks and stones. That is, they protected themselves (and hunted) with the weapons available at the time. If it is reasonable that humans have the right to defend themselves against their own species, then it is reasonable that they should be similarly armed.
The problem, however, is not the tool. While people are killed with guns, the percentage of guns used in crime versus the number of guns in private hands is insignificantly small. We have laws to punish wrongdoers. We have laws that restrict access to firearms to criminals, juveniles, drug users, and the mentally unstable. Isn’t it better to attack the problem than it is to attack in inanimate object?
As I pointed out, an attack is an overt act. Defense is a response. There is a difference between the two. So no, it isn’t a “preference”; and therefore I cannot acknowledge that the distinction is my own, because it isn’t.
Again, I said usually. I never said that humans are unique in that respect.
It’s still hard to protect yourself without that right in many cases. There is at least one woman who posts to these boards who has been raped. She has said that had she had a gun she could have protected herself. She has since gotten a gun and she has learned how to use it.