You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #91: To Whom it May Concern (Part 3) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
91. To Whom it May Concern (Part 3)
Safe and secure storage laws sound ok in a principle free vacuum. The same applies to licensing requirements for firearms ownerswho doesnt support gun owners understanding safety rules, the law, and the consequences of breaking it? And what could possibly be wrong with the government keeping track of all weapons? Who doesnt support keeping guns out of criminal hands?

One problem is that there is no vacuum. There are at least two schools of thought on gun rights.

School 1
1) There are no gun rights, only gun privileges. If it pleases those in power, they may bestow upon you the privilege of owning weapons under their terms. If it pleases them (for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all), they can just as easily take your privilege away or change the terms.

2) You have a right to defend yourself, but no right to effective means to do so. So, for instance, if you are a sixty year old man repeatedly attacked in your own house by multiple teenage punks, you have the right to engage them in hand-to-hand combat. No matter how many trips to the hospital, no matter the number of death threats, no matter how many court orders protecting you, you have no right to effective means of self-defense, say for instance a shotgun.

If the choice is between being effectively armed and dying, it is your civic duty to die (unless the powers that be grant you favorwhich you will probably have to pay for).

3) The less privately owned guns there are, the less crime there will be. This is self-evident TRUTH. Obviously guns not under the control of state actors should be minimized. (The fact that states are responsible for the vast majority of innocent deaths in modern history is studiously ignored.)

When this school, guided by no principles but achievability and political ambition, makes laws, you get schemes like the one in the District of Columbia. These are the people who cannot even bring themselves to condemn the criminal confiscation in New Orleans. They are not impressed by the Constitution, the rule of law (like mayor Nutter), or consistency ( like the character discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ).

School 2
1) The right to self-defense is a basic human right, and the right to own, possess, and carry effective means of self-defense is part of that right. This must be sothe right to the ends without the right to possess the means is nonsensical.

2) The right to self-defense is not a gift of governmentwe have rights because we are human beings. Governments exists to protect rights. In fact, a government that does not protect rights has no excuse to exist.

3) Government may limit rights in order to meet compelling state intereststo protect the legitimate rights of others. It must do so using the least obtrusive means that will be effective. (For instance, no firing guns into the air to celebrate New Years day is a proper safety law in New York City. It is not a proper law if you are alone in the middle of your 100,000 acre ranch.)

Of course, according to the first school it is the height of paranoia for the second school to distrust them. Yes, registration and licensing has been used to confiscate weapons. But it could never happen again . . . ever. We are not trying to confiscate weapons (right now). Isnt that enough?!

This school will, of course, do only what they think reasonable. (And their fundamental beliefs apparently will in no way affect their judgment. Trust them.)

Anyone who does not accept their shaky (non)denials is most likely mentally unstable, or so the party line goes. Heres an example of a moderately clever non denial:

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them. - iverglas

No it doesnt. But trusting people (and those less familiar with the English language) will imagine that this sentence means that iverglas does not intend to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them. Of course she said no such thing. The underlining was a nice touch, however. It almost veils the fact that this sentence contains no useful information. It is a logical truism.

The bottom line? It would be stupid to attempt to attempt to negotiate in good faith regarding the regulation of your rights, when the person across the table refuses to admit the existence of those rights. If you add in the long history of gun control lies and deceptions, it is beyond stupid.

If School 1 will first admit the right to arms exists, we will be in a better position to negotiate the details of regulation. Until then, it is logical for School 2 to drag their feet on things they would otherwise support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC