Shower Thought about Guns - I don't really care that much about them - I'm not scared of them - I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me - but its weird how many people gather around the 2nd amendment when no one uses it to stand up to gov't oppression

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

2A people come to see gun ownership as a matter of respect and independence. If you don't already have guns, you probably see no reason to want them either, but if you already have guns and were born into a family that has them, and you admire like the fact that you have the ultimate security device. To have the government tell you that you have to give them up is like the law saying "we're adults, but you're not. We can handle guns, but you can't." If you own guns, all of the shootings and tragedies that happen to other people seem like someone else's problem, because none of it involved your guns, it involved other people's. So from your perspective, you think the gun isn't the problem. People who don't own guns, of course, don't care, since the stand nothing to lose, and everything to gain from guns being harder to acquire or keep.

Our best bet towards limiting guns is to be very generous with grandfather clauses, so that current owners feel secure, while curbing the number of new owners. I suspect a lot of current owners are fine with that, it's the firearms industry that pushes back against limiting new buyers.

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns." If you have specific ideas about curbing the illegal use of certain fire arms, I'm all ears.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns."

To reduce the rate of illegal activities involving guns.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

OK, but if you outlaw gun ownership, then it's not a right anymore, is it?

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of things can be done for a lot less. Clearly we agree to disagree.

I hope your desires to ban guns fail and I'm quite certain they will.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

The Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, simply enumerates these 'natural world/god given rights'. Any animal in nature has all of the Rights as we know them.

Granted, we live in a controlled world, where you can, and will die in exercising those natural world Inalienable Rights.

A little side jaunt on this: Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition:

Definitions:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; The Characteristic of those things which cannot be bought, or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without consent of the one possessing such rights.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

So by your way of thinking, if the Constitution is ammended, it can never be un-amended. I hope you can simply realize that makes no sense. Talk about a person's "rights" being beyond reproach is just rhetoric. People are deprived of these "rights" on a regular basis, for example, when someone is sent to prison.

This confusing notion of rights that you're granted by God himself is something that Americans are indoctrinated with from an early age, but most people in the world don't share in this confusion, and see things more for how they really are; defined more by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

You've lost me.

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

IMO, the distinction is just rhetorical. Rights are intended to be permanent, timeless and even self evident, but ultimately they're none of those things. Legal rights are granted by a government, the same as a legal privileges. If you say you're "defending someone's rights", you're not really defending the person per se, you're defending an existing law (or constitutional provision), and never actually offering a reason as to why you're doing so. Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You've lost me. I was explaining to you what a 'Right' is as opposed to 'privilege'. The Bill of Rights, the 1st 10, are considered to be sacred god(whatever, or none you subscribe to) given; they're simply enumerated. My usage of 'natural world rights', is simply my attempt at moving this out of the realm of 'religious' dogma, and moving it into something that can be seen.

Many of the folks named as 'Founders' made it very clear what Rights were, and where they came from by way of 'animal' comparisons.

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary; let's talk guns. The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries. Rights are hard to really take; especially when it's somewhat laid out by 'the law of the land/jungle'.