Reply #68: all those things are already illegal

[Hrumph]

Of course it is. So is pooping. Can you imagine the notion of not having a right to poop?? And yet limits are placed on your exercise of that right. How odd. So is dog ownership, and car ownership, and earning a living. I can't imagine a govt. saying that I didn't have the right to do any of those things. (Although I have no doubt that some self-taught expert will be here in short order saying I don't.) Licences required for all of 'em in many circumstances.

So far, I haven't seen anyone proposing a "poop" license. As far as the others, you may have the right to OWN those things but if you take them off your property then THAT'S a privilege granted by the state. Your dog has to have a license - Public health, you know. And if you drive on public streets, your car MUST be licensed and insured and YOU must be licensed. You do not have a RIGHT to drive on public streets. Now, you may claim that right but if your govt. stops granting licenses for these things then where does that leave you?

I don't know what all this "prequalify" is. Someone who is qualified to exercise the right -- i.e. not prohibited from exercising it for good and valid reasons ("justification") -- can then be required to exercise it in the manner least likely to interfere with the public interest, where such requirements do not effectively deny the exercise of the right without justification. The requirement that I remove the key from the ignition of my car simply does not effectively deny the exercise of my right to go places ("liberty"). The requirement that someone store firearms and ammunition separately and locked when not in use in no way denies the exercise of any right.

It is already illegal for the persons you're talking about to own or possess firearms. Since safe-storage laws are practically unenforceable until AFTER the fact, I believe they are useless. I submit to you that someone not already motivated by the potential loss of a loved one - or at least by the potential for theft of the firearm - is not making sound decisions concerning that storage. I don't believe the potential threat of criminal prosecution would be taken any more seriously.

A right that is subject to reasonable and justified limitation does not become a privilege by the stroke of a pen or any other wise. There is justification for prohibiting me from pooping in the park. There is no justification for prohibiting me from pooping in my home between dusk and dawn, or for prohibiting me from pooping anywhere ever. Just because you or someone else doesn't grasp the concept of justified limitation on the exercise of rights doesn't mean that the concept has no meaning.

There is justification for prohibiting shooting people. Those prohibitions are already in place. Your comparison is invalid on 2 points; 1) There is no license to poop. 2) You argue as if there are not already limitations on the right of gun ownership. Clearly, there are.

If I were of a similarly rude bent, I'd say: stop being such a selfish asshole, and stop making petulant and childish "you're not the boss of me" statements as if they trumped argument based on the legitimate interests and concerns of other people and accurately expressed the way in which individual rights and collective interests interact. Luckily, I'm not like that, eh?

I am not being rude, I'm just calling them as I see them. Current law has already addressed the legitimate intersts of the general public. If we can find no room for agreement on that point then so be it but your constant mischaracterization of my positions is disingenuous. Similarly, your protestations of being above certain behaviors, while engaging in them in the very same sentence, is not witty, or entertaining.

But I will say: stop characterizing other people's legitimate concerns both for themselves and for more vulnerable individuals and groups as some sort of character defect. It's not attractive. Or civil.

As a matter of fact, unwillingness to take personal responsibility for one's own safety IS a character defect. A serious one at that. As I said, the ligitimate concerns have already been more than addressed by current law. Furthermore, I am not willing to cede my rights to the illegitimate authority some others might wish to impose in order to placate their fear by rendering me just as defenseless as they have made themselves.

Ah yes. All we really have to do is persuade those criminals to obey those laws. Good luck with that, eh?

Persuade? I never said anything like that. Clearly, you misinterpret what I said.