The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

Privileges, rights, and obligations are all different at the core even if they loosely resemble each other grown out.

 

[Berzerker]

Laws generally should protect rights but even the Constitution allows them to be denied in certain situations

a right is a morally valid claim to act or think and it exists regardless of government, a just law recognizes and defends that claim

gun rights are based on the right of self defense

Thats an interesting question regarding religion and taxes. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion but spares churches taxes (most, all?). The rest of us end up making up the difference, effectively a subsidy for religion from Congress. On the other hand I suspect the Framers started the practice of exempting churches from taxes to avoid religious conflict (or did the courts rule them exempt?).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

a right is a morally valid claim to act or think and it exists regardless of government, a just law recognizes and defends that claim

That's a lovely romantic notion of course, but in reality a right is a concept born purely from human imagination and only has any substance so long as there's a broad consensus on it. It also has no real practical value unless it's backed up by a corresponding legal right. So ultimately it's just a law, albeit a protective one rather than a prohibitive one. The "right to bear arms" is not some universal truth like the Planck constant, and doesn't need to be treated as if it's an eternal, immutable thing that exists independently of the thoughts, wants, desires of the people who live under it.

 

[metalhead]

The Supreme Court also once said "separate but equal" was Constitutional, but I'm sure you'd agree they got that one wrong.

I don't know what that has to do with the very simple fact that the words "keep and bear" are not the same as the word "own." You can't just create a right out of whole cloth by claiming that words mean things other than what they mean.

 

[Estebonrober]

That's a lovely romantic notion of course, but in reality a right is a concept born purely from human imagination and only has any substance so long as there's a broad consensus on it. It also has no real practical value unless it's backed up by a corresponding legal right. So ultimately it's just a law, albeit a protective one rather than a prohibitive one. The "right to bear arms" is not some universal truth like the Planck constant, and doesn't need to be treated as if it's an eternal, immutable thing that exists independently of the thoughts, wants, desires of the people who live under it.

I liked this post if for no other reason because any time someone drops the Planck Constant as part of their retort I will like it.

 

[Berzerker]

That's a lovely romantic notion of course, but in reality a right is a concept born purely from human imagination and only has any substance so long as there's a broad consensus on it. It also has no real practical value unless it's backed up by a corresponding legal right. So ultimately it's just a law, albeit a protective one rather than a prohibitive one. The "right to bear arms" is not some universal truth like the Planck constant, and doesn't need to be treated as if it's an eternal, immutable thing that exists independently of the thoughts, wants, desires of the people who live under it.

If you're walking down the street and a stranger attacks you, do you first 'imagine' the right to defend yourself before doing so? You say its not a universal truth, but isn't nature replete with critters defending themselves with all sorts of weapons?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Owning a gun is not a prerequisite for self defense. In many attacks, fleeing is your best option.

 

[Berzerker]

I agree, but guns are just a means to self defense... If the right of self defense is valid then the guns are based on that 'natural right'.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The one does not require the other. And I don't think there's that broad support for going as far with gun control here as Australia or New Zealand. Continued intransigence against doing anything only pads the bottom line of gun manufacturers at the cost of avoidable tragedies.

I can't speak for all liberals but I for one am turning harder and harder in favor of gun control to the point where I would at least support pretty draconian bans even if I'm not yet advocating for them. Each tragedy is wildly different which begins to point to what is taken as an obvious truth elsewhere - if you want to stop as many permutations of mass murder as you can, you have to get rid of almost all of the instruments of those crimes. Anything less is a stop gap.

Or at least that's where my thinking is beginning to lean. I truly don't think my stance would have evolved in this way had some sensible, reasonable restrictions been made. Instead we've had so many mass murders I've begun to lose count of them.

 

[Berzerker]

the one (guns) is based on the other (right of self defense)... I dont need a Bible to be religious but I still have the right to own one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Right but are than any other bibles than the one depicted here that is capable of mowing down classrooms of kindergartners?



ugh i tried so hard to make that joke work but it just doesn't

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

If you're walking down the street and a stranger attacks you, do you first 'imagine' the right to defend yourself before doing so? You say its not a universal truth, but isn't nature replete with critters defending themselves with all sorts of weapons?

This is the naturalistic fallacy. What does that fact that nature is replete with critters defending themselves have to do with anything? Nature is full of cannibalism, rape, disease and death, are those rights too?

 

[Phrossack]

The one does not require the other. And I don't think there's that broad support for going as far with gun control here as Australia or New Zealand. Continued intransigence against doing anything only pads the bottom line of gun manufacturers at the cost of avoidable tragedies.

I can't speak for all liberals but I for one am turning harder and harder in favor of gun control to the point where I would at least support pretty draconian bans even if I'm not yet advocating for them. Each tragedy is wildly different which begins to point to what is taken as an obvious truth elsewhere - if you want to stop as many permutations of mass murder as you can, you have to get rid of almost all of the instruments of those crimes. Anything less is a stop gap.

Or at least that's where my thinking is beginning to lean. I truly don't think my stance would have evolved in this way had some sensible, reasonable restrictions been made. Instead we've had so many mass murders I've begun to lose count of them.

I can certainly understand this reaction to the incessant killings and NRA extremism.

But lately I've been more of a mind that Democrats should instead offer to the NRA and Republicans to leave most gun laws as they are and to work with them on mental health, which they keep claiming is the real cause of these massacres.

They're half right; mental health and violent culture does contribute. Of course, the NRA and Republicans are probably being disingenuous when they claim that, because they aren't exactly trying to address mental health or culture as far as I know, and are just saying that to take the heat off gun laws. Tell them we won't take their guns and instead will give them the chance to do something about what they claim is the problem, and let everyone see.

Second, I think gun control is counterproductive. It's one of THE decisive issues that determines how hundreds of thousands vote, there are already so many guns out there and so many entrenched interests that we couldn't enact gun control if we tried...and frankly, if and when the right wing decides to "cut down the tall trees," we can't afford for them to be the only ones with guns.

 

[Berzerker]

Right but are than any other bibles than the one depicted here that is capable of mowing down classrooms of kindergartners?

ugh i tried so hard to make that joke work but it just doesn't

If the shooter was motivated by the Bible can we ban it too?

This is the naturalistic fallacy. What does that fact that nature is replete with critters defending themselves have to do with anything? Nature is full of cannibalism, rape, disease and death, are those rights too?

It has to do with universality... Rape and cannibalism aren't, self defense is. Rights are moral claims people have against other people, not disease or death.

 

[cardgame]

Not so long ago, men had rights to absolute command of their wives. This is a poor direction of argument.

 

[Berzerker]

Was their claim morally superior to their wives' right to not be commanded?

 

[cardgame]

Society did indeed hold that it was.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm asking you... Do you agree with 'society'? The fact slave owners claimed the right to own other people doesn't mean their claim was valid, thats true for husbands - or society - claiming the right to command their wives.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

It has to do with universality... Rape and cannibalism aren't, self defense is. Rights are moral claims people have against other people, not disease or death.

Self defense cannot be more universal than instances of assault where self defense is needed. Are these assaults a right? The universality of something cannot be used as an argument for it being a right or moral thing. Surely you understand this?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you're walking down the street and a stranger attacks you, do you first 'imagine' the right to defend yourself before doing so? You say its not a universal truth, but isn't nature replete with critters defending themselves with all sorts of weapons?

To describe a natural instinctive reaction as a right seems a bit odd. If I tip up a glass of water, does the water first 'imagine' the right to pour onto the floor before doing so?