Jack-booted thugs

[DeltaOne81]

Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?

Because we have to go to certain places to exercise that right, and only on certain days? Because you can't vote in a concealed place - i.e. at home?

I think you're awfully stretching the idea of what is or isn't a right in only one case (fyi, you missed the argument that driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why I chose voting).


We can have debates all day on what is or isn't good gun control policy, but just because there are some restrictions doesn't mean the right is destroyed. Heck, the right to free speech, and press, aseemably, and everything else have restrictions and limitations as well ("yelling fire in a crowded theater" being the typical example, but there are certainly more). I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be more absolute and unrestricted than the 1st.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered. That makes it difficult for the right to bear arms, as firearms always contain the potential for infringement on another's right to life and liberty. As I said we could discuss all day what is good policy and what isn't (and despite being a liberal, I tend to be more libertarian on that matter (not absolutely, but more so) ). Nonetheless, it does not gel that any restrictions are a right are tantamount to the loss of said right.


[quote krose]By "natural right," I mean only those things you can do in a state of nature, i.e. a state in which some third-party isn't arbitrarily putting limits on your behavior. As it applies here, in such a state you can own and carry a gun anywhere you don't have an agreement not to. This is a pretty well-defined concept that is explained reasonably well on Wikipedia.[/quote]

Still, in a natural state your rights are limited to what the strongest animal in the plain says. You have no right to anything that you can't take. I wouldn't exactly want to run a society based on such a principal anyway.

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81]Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?[/quote]Rights come with responsibilities.  Folks from all parts of the political spectrum often forget this.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

I'm pretty sure that "hateful" speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.  As it should be.  I'm not sure what you mean by "harmful speech" so I'll leave that be (unless you mean supporting sports teams with Indian nicknames, which is certainly protected :-D).

[Beeeej]

[quote krose][quote Beeeej][quote krose]How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?[/quote]

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.[/quote]
Two responses:

(1) If parents were properly held responsible for the behavior of their children, this would be a non-issue (and would solve lots of other problems at the same time).  As long as the kids know how to drive before they get behind the wheel by themselves, the test means nothing because they would have acquired their license anyway.

(2) Who most often enforces the must-have-license-to-drive restriction?  Presumably the owner of the car, because I've only ever been pulled over 3 times (and gotten a ticket once) in 13 years of driving and I drive like my gas pedal has two positions: off and floor.  So, if the owner of the car is most often the one enforcing this restriction, why can't he or she simply make sure a person knows how to drive before allowing them to use the car?  Why does the gub'mint need to be involved at all?[/quote]

I'm glad you responded at such length, because it clearly illustrates the reason for my sarcastic remark:  Your sloganeering, while inspiring, is imperfect.

In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures.  Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.

[RichH]

[quote krose](3) against the fact that defensive uses of firearms occur at a much higher rate (estimated between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year) than criminal uses of firearms.  This doesn't include all the times guns are used for practice, in shooting sports, or for hunting, and doesn't even touch on uses relevant to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)[/quote]

Duck Season!!

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK][quote DeltaOne81]Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?[/quote]Rights come with responsibilities.  Folks from all parts of the political spectrum often forget this.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

I'm pretty sure that "hateful" speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.  As it should be.  I'm not sure what you mean by "harmful speech" so I'll leave that be (unless you mean supporting sports teams with Indian nicknames, which is certainly protected :-D).[/quote]

Okay, so you found a spot where I didn't use the best wording. I went for alliteration over clarity, which was a mistake

What I was referring to really was speech advocating hateful violence. I connected it to 'harmful' (by which I mean speech that puts other people in harms way - such as, again, advocating violence against them or back to the 'fire in a crowded theater' typical example). I really shoulda said hateful and harmful. Certainly hateful speech is protected, as it should be.

[Rosey]

[quote KeithK]I don't have a problem with gun licensing schemes that follow the shall issue model.[/quote]
The core of my problem with any sort of licensing is that the mere existence of licensing gives legitimacy to the notion that you need permission to do a thing before you can do it, and that you are presumed not to be able to do that thing properly or without state oversight.

With this legitimacy, it becomes easier to impose more and more capricious restrictions on the exercise of that right, making the whole notion of "right" really laughable once it is no longer shall-issue.  Besides, what does the "shall" in "shall-issue" really mean?  In some jurisdictions, a person who has at any point in his or her life been denied a firearms license anywhere in the country for any reason will never again qualify for the "shall-issue" category, even if he was denied for a capricious reason in some may-issue state.

Let me state unequivocally that I would much rather live in a world in which all criminals and all lawful people had equally easy access to firearms than the world in which we live, where criminals have access to firearms only illegally---but easily, despite that---while lawful people have a tough time obtaining and bearing firearms legally in many jurisdictions and under many normal circumstances.  This is what gun control gets you: a higher ratio of armed criminals to armed lawful people.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?[/quote]
This is where I'm sorry our language has become so muddled that it's not clear what "rights" we're referring to.

Voting is not a "(natural) right" because it exists only in the context of government.  Voting is better classified as a "privilege," but I'm not going to fight that battle, which is why I use the term "natural right".

I think you're awfully stretching the idea of what is or isn't a right in only one case (fyi, you missed the argument that driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why I chose voting).

And I think this is exactly backward: driving is a "(natural) right" because you can do this in a state of nature.  Voting is not.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

Keith covered this pretty well.

Still, in a natural state your rights are limited to what the strongest animal in the plain says.

And possessing a gun and the knowledge of how to use it is going to give you a much better chance of being strong enough to ward off the strongest animal than if you had only a bat or a knife or your bare hands.  The venerable Colt .45 revolver wasn't called the "great equalizer" (among other things) for nothing: e.g., an 85 year old widow living alone is going to have a much easier time warding off a 25 year old male attacker if she has a gun than if she doesn't.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej]In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures.  Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.[/quote]
I think I covered this in my reply to Keith: I don't agree with any form of compulsory licensing because it opens the door to doling out the now-privilege (no longer a "right") on capricious grounds.  I am an absolutist on that point... but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

[quote krose]but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.[/quote]

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote krose]but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.[/quote]

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.[/quote]

Thank you, Ben Rocky. :-D

I'm just telling you why I believe the things I do so you have a bit of perspective.  Clearly, you don't have to agree with me, but the facts are the facts: the government's relationship with individuals is compulsory, i.e., it relies on the threat of force.  That may not bother you, but it does indeed bother me.

If there's a way to successfully maintain order without compulsory relationships, IMO we should do it that way because not to do so is immoral.

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

Yada yada yada... crazy hole

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81]Okay, so you found a spot where I didn't use the best wording. I went for alliteration over clarity, which was a mistake

What I was referring to really was speech advocating hateful violence. I connected it to 'harmful' (by which I mean speech that puts other people in harms way - such as, again, advocating violence against them or back to the 'fire in a crowded theater' typical example). I really shoulda said hateful and harmful. Certainly hateful speech is protected, as it should be.[/quote]OK, sorry.  I thought you were saying "Hateful speech" and "harmful speech" were too different categories.

[KeithK]

[quote krose][quote DeltaOne81][quote krose]but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.[/quote]

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.[/quote]

Thank you, Ben Rocky. :-D

I'm just telling you why I believe the things I do so you have a bit of perspective.  Clearly, you don't have to agree with me, but the facts are the facts: the government's relationship with individuals is compulsory, i.e., it relies on the threat of force.  That may not bother you, but it does indeed bother me.

If there's a way to successfully maintain order without compulsory relationships, IMO we should do it that way because not to do so is immoral.

Cheers,
Kyle[/quote]I'd agree with your final if statement in principle.  If society can make an arrangement without compulsory relationships then it should.  But I think it's naive to believe that you can do so in most, or even many cases.

In many ways government is a necessary evil.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK]
In many ways government is a necessary evil.[/quote]

And now we get to basically one of the main fundamental differences between those that are/lean liberal and those that are/lean conservative.

[Beeeej]

[quote krose][quote Beeeej]In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures.  Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.[/quote]
I think I covered this in my reply to Keith: I don't agree with any form of compulsory licensing because it opens the door to doling out the now-privilege (no longer a "right") on capricious grounds.  I am an absolutist on that point... but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.[/quote]

Do you see society (not government) as owing any sort of protection to the small child whose parent is not responsible enough to know how to store a handgun and its ammunition, yet owns one anyway?